The Delhi High Court on Monday directed expeditious consideration of a plea seeking stay of an ex parte injunction restraining social media posts linking Himani Puri to convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, with the Division Bench emphasising the need to hear both sides at the earliest.A Bench of Justice Vivek Chaudhary and Justice Renu Bhatnagar asked the single judge to take up and decide the application moved by Raipur-based activist Kunal Shukla “as expeditiously as possible”.The court also fixed timelines, directing Shukla to file his reply to the interim injunction application within one week, followed by a rejoinder within a further week. The matter has been preponed and listed before the single judge on April 23.The dispute arises from a Rs 10 crore defamation suit filed by Puri, daughter of Union Minister Hardeep Singh Puri, alleging a coordinated online campaign linking her to Epstein.On March 17, the single judge directed intermediaries, including major social media platforms, to take down the impugned content within India, while keeping the issue of global takedown pending.Senior Advocate Vikas Singh, appearing for Shukla, questioned the manner in which the injunction had been granted, submitting that the order was passed in undue haste. He contended that the timeline between the impugned posts and the March 17 injunction did not justify curtailing the defendant’s opportunity to respond, and argued that settled principles under the Code of Civil Procedure had not been followed.Opposing the appeal, Senior Advocate Mahesh Jethmalani, appearing for Puri, raised a preliminary objection and alleged elements of perjury, submitting that Shukla had been served and was represented before the single judge.In his appeal, Shukla characterised the injunction as a “blanket pre-trial gag order”, contending that his posts were interrogative in nature and based on publicly available material, including regulatory filings and international reports.He argued that the injunction was granted at the threshold, without affording him an effective opportunity of hearing, thereby virtually decreeing the suit at the interim stage.The petitioner submitted that the order recorded the existence of a prima facie case and balance of convenience without analysing the material on record or the settled standards governing defamation injunctions. It asserted that where a defendant raises a plausible defence of truth, fair comment and public interest based on public records, pre-trial restraint ought not to be imposed.Shukla also contended that the direction for takedown amounts to prior restraint, infringing Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, and had a chilling effect on journalistic speech. The appeal questions the proportionality of the relief, stating that a blanket takedown was ordered without examining less restrictive alternatives.