The Delhi High Court on March 19, 2026, directed Tamil media outlet Nakkheeran Media to remove allegedly defamatory videos and articles targeting Isha Foundation and its founder Sadhguru, while also declining to dismiss the defamation suit at a preliminary stage.
The order follows a 2024 lawsuit filed by Isha seeking removal of content and damages, alleging the material was false, vulgar, and harmful to its reputation. Welcoming the decision, Isha reiterated its commitment to pursuing legal remedies against misinformation, even as the case continues to raise broader questions around media accountability, free expression, and judicial oversight.
Court Directs Takedown, Allows Case to Proceed
In a significant interim order, the Delhi High Court directed the removal of all “impugned” videos and articles published by Nakkheeran Media concerning Isha Foundation and Sadhguru. The bench, led by Justice Subramonium Prasad, also rejected the media outlet’s plea to dismiss the defamation suit at the threshold, indicating that the matter requires detailed examination through trial. The court’s decision came after hearing arguments from both parties in December 2025, when it had reserved its verdict.
According to submissions made by Isha Foundation, the content published by Nakkheeran contained “defamatory, vulgar, and obscene” allegations, including claims of exploitation and illegal activities. The Foundation argued that such content was not only baseless but also intended to tarnish its public image and undermine its decades-long work in social outreach and spiritual programmes.
In its official statement following the order, Isha said it “wholeheartedly welcomes” the court’s direction, adding that “certain media outlets and individuals continue to propagate false and defamatory allegations without any evidence, as part of a deliberate effort to mislead the public.”
The organisation further highlighted its global initiatives, stating that for over three decades it has been engaged in large-scale social development and human well-being efforts impacting millions. It claimed that “coordinated attacks” through misinformation campaigns seek to disrupt this work. Reaffirming its stance, Isha said it would continue to pursue “all appropriate legal action” against those responsible, underscoring that “no amount of defamation or orchestrated misinformation will deter” its mission.
Legal Background and Expanding Dispute
The present case originates from a series of videos and reports published by Nakkheeran Media, which prompted Isha Foundation to file a defamation suit before the Delhi High Court in 2024. The Foundation sought removal of the contested content, a permanent injunction against future publication of similar material, and monetary damages reportedly amounting to ₹3 crore. Alongside the main suit, Isha also filed an interim application seeking immediate takedown of the content in question, including material published during proceedings related to a transfer petition.
The dispute has also seen proceedings before the Supreme Court of India, where issues related to jurisdiction and transfer of the case were raised. However, the apex court directed that the matter be pursued before the Delhi High Court, allowing it to continue adjudicating the dispute.
The case has also drawn in digital intermediaries such as Google, given the online availability and dissemination of the allegedly defamatory content, highlighting the complex interplay between publishers and platforms in the digital age.
This is not the first instance of judicial intervention in matters concerning alleged defamatory content about Isha Foundation and Sadhguru. In March 2025, the Delhi High Court had directed YouTuber Shyam Meera Singh to take down a video containing claims that were contested by the Foundation. The repeated recourse to courts reflects an ongoing pattern of legal contestation over narratives, reputation, and the boundaries of permissible public discourse.
At the same time, the case underscores the growing tensions between media organisations and influential institutions, particularly in an era where digital platforms amplify reach and impact. Allegations, counterclaims, and legal responses are increasingly playing out not just in courtrooms but also across online spaces, shaping public perception in real time.
The Logical Indian’s Perspective
This case brings into sharp focus the delicate balance between protecting individuals and organisations from defamation and upholding the fundamental right to free expression. On one hand, the spread of misinformation especially when it is unverified or malicious can cause significant harm, making legal safeguards both necessary and justified.
The challenge lies in ensuring that legal mechanisms are used to address genuine grievances without inadvertently creating a chilling effect on journalism. Responsible reporting must be rooted in evidence, fairness, and ethical standards, while institutions and public figures must remain open to legitimate questioning and critique.
Also read: Supreme Court Flags ‘Normalised Injustice’, Urges Law to Recognise Paternity Leave as Right
