ISHA FOUNDATION v. GOOGLE LLC & ORS.

1. The present Application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [“CPC”] has been filed by the Plaintiff seeking a clarification of the Order dated 19.03.2026, by way of which this Court inter alia allowed I.A. No. 30090/2025 filed by the Plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 of the CPC and granted the following interim reliefs:-

2. By way of the instant Application, the Plaintiff has sought a clarification of certain directions passed by this Court at Paragraphs No. 58 and 59 of the Order dated 19.03.2026, to the extent that the same ought to also include the 39 short videos and 5 English language videos which are mentioned at Paragraph 10 of the Plaint.

3. It is the contention of the learned Counsel for the Applicant that though the prayer is not happily worded, it in fact includes all those links which are mentioned in Paragraph 10 of the Plaint. In support of its Application, the learned Counsel for the Plaintiff submits that Paragraphs No. 25 to 47 of I.A. No. 30090/2025, which under adjudication by this Court on 19.03.2026, refers to 11 videos which were originally mentioned at Paragraph No.10 of the Plaint. It is stated this Paragraph No.10 of the Plaint also includes 39 short videos and 5 English language videos, content of which is identical to the 11 videos mentioned in Paragraphs No. 25 to 47 of I.A. No. 30090/2025.

4. Thus, broadly understood, the Plaintiff’s case is that since this Court directed the Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 to bring down the Impugned Videos and articles uploaded at the links as mentioned as mentioned in Paragraph Nos. 10 and 25 to 51 of I.A. No. 30090/2025, and Paragraph No. 25 makes the Plaint a part and parcel of the said application, by extension, the links mentioned at Paragraph No.10 of the Plaint should also have been specifically mentioned in the Order dated 19.03.2026, as the contents thereof are virtually the same.

5. Per contra, it is the contention of the learned Counsel for the Defendants No. 2 and 3, that by way of the present Application, the Plaintiff is actually seeking a review of the Order dated 19.03.2026 and the prayers sought herein go beyond those made in I.A. No. 30090/2025. She further submits that by way of the instant Application, the Plaintiff is attempting to bypass the procedure and expand his prayers of interim injunction, which have been already adjudicated in the Order dated 19.03.2026.

6. Heard the learned Counsels for the Parties.

7. Though this application is styled as one for clarification, it is in fact one for modification. The Applicant herein is including links which are not mentioned in the stay application, i.e., I.A. No. 30090/2025, but these links which are mentioned in the Plaint have been referred to at Paragraph 25 of I.A. No. 30090/2025, which makes the content of the Plaint a part and parcel of the said application. Therefore, it cannot be said that the prayer in the present application is alien to those in I.A. No. 30090/2025.

8. In the Order dated 19.03.2026, this Court had given a detailed explanation as to why the direction for taking down of the Impugned Videos and articles was passed. This Court also notes that the I.A. No. 30090/2025 made the contents of the Plaint as part and parcel of the said application. Moreover, a close perusal of the Order dated 19.03.2026 shows that this Court has specifically mentioned Paragraph No. 25 of I.A. No. 30090/2025 which directly refers to Paragraph No.10 of the Plaint and viewed the content therein a per se defamatory. This, in the opinion of this Court, is implication enough that the 39 short videos and 5 English language videos do not require a separate adjudication, on account of them being a part of I.A. No. 30090/2025.

9. Though it has been observed earlier that the instant Application is one for modification/clarification of the Order dated 19.03.2026, this Court is of the opinion that this modification is necessary in spirit of the Order dated 19.03.2026, and therefore, this Court is inclined to allow the instant Application.

10. Resultantly, Paragraphs Nos.58 and 59 of the Order dated 19.03.2026 are modified to read as under:- “58. Accordingly, the Defendants No.2 and 3, their associates, servants, agents, affiliates, assignees, substitutes, representatives, their subscribers, employees and/or persons claiming through them and/or under them from creating publishing, uploading, sharing, disseminating etc. any such defamatory content, articles, videos until the next date of hearing.

59. Defendants No.1 and 3 are also directed to bring down the bring down the impugned videos and articles which has been uploaded at the links as mentioned in Para 10 and Paras 25 to 51 of the instant Application being I.A. No. 30090/2025, as well as the 39 short videos and 5 English language videos mentioned at Paragraph No. 10 of the Plaint.”

11. The Order dated 19.03.2026 is accordingly modified to the abovementioned extent.