Who are 'John Does'? How Delhi Court used this injunction to block anonymous 'online defamation' against Guruji Ka Ashram Trust

Representative image

• Delhi court orders YouTube to remove defamatory video on Guruji Ka Ashram Trust
• Court restrains "Molitics" and unknown entities from sharing similar content
• John Doe order issued to stop republishing of defamatory material by unknown parties

Did our AI summary help?

A district court in Delhi has directed YouTube to take down an allegedly defamatory video within two days, holding that the content is prima facie disparaging and capable of causing irreparable harm to Guruji Ka Ashram Trust and its associated persons.

The order was passed by District Judge Sachin Mittal of Saket Courts while hearing a civil suit filed by the trust seeking permanent and mandatory injunctions and damages.

The court also restrained the operators of the YouTube channel “Molitics”, along with unidentified persons, from publishing, circulating, or re-uploading similar content during the pendency of the suit.

The restraint has been extended to unknown entities (John Does) who may share or republish the impugned video or post content against the trust, its late founder, Guruji, trustees or devotees.

The dispute relates to a 17-minute video uploaded on January 15, 2026, titled “Jai Guruji’ -- Fraud Baba by Neeraj Jha”. The trust alleged that the thumbnail and content used expressions such as “loot”, “thugi”, “fraud baba” and “balatkaar”.

After viewing the video, the court noted that both the thumbnail and the content were “prima facie disparaging and defamatory” in nature.

Observing the importance of protecting reputation, the court stated: “Defamation is an injury to a person's reputation. Every person has a right to maintain and preserve his reputation unassailed. The law of defamation protects the reputation. A person's reputation, which is her precious possession, can not always be measured in terms of money.”

The judge further reasoned, “The Court is also of the view that the prejudice, which the plaintiff would suffer if the impugned video is allowed to be published/circulated on the internet, would be greater than the one, which would be caused to the defendants, if they are injuncted. The injury to the reputation, being not measurable in terms of money, would be irreparable.”

Appearing for the trust, Sandeep Kapur, Senior Partner at Karanjawala & Co, submitted that the video employed scurrilous expressions intended to malign the reputation of ‘Guruji’ and his global following.

He also argued that defamatory content is repeatedly uploaded across digital platforms, and by the time action is taken, such material attracts lakhs of views, leading to irreversible damage. Emphasising the need for preventive relief, he sought a John Doe injunction to restrain unidentified perpetrators.

Accepting these submissions, the court directed YouTube to remove the impugned URL forthwith and restrained the defendants from publishing or disseminating similar material until the next date of hearing. The trust was represented by Kapur along with a team of advocates from Karanjawala & Co.

Who are John Does? What is a John Doe order?

A John Doe order is a form of injunction issued by a court against unnamed or unidentified defendants. The expression “John Doe” refers to a person whose identity is not yet known. Such an order enables legal action not only against known parties but also against individuals whose names or addresses are presently unknown, yet who are suspected of infringing or likely to infringe someone’s rights.