Delhi HC Grants Injunction to Astrologer Trishla Chaturvedi, Orders Removal of Defamatory Videos Against ‘Trishla Maa’ [Read Order]

New Delhi: The Delhi High Court has granted an interim injunction in favour of renowned astrologer Trishla Chaturvedi, popularly known as “Trishla Maa,” directing the immediate removal of defamatory videos and restraining further publication of such content.

Justice Amit Bansal delivered the order in CS(OS) 613/2025 on September 4, 2025, finding prima facie merit in the defamation suit filed by the celebrity astrologer against Umang Taneja and others, and seeking damages of Rs. 2.10 crores.

The court addressed the case of Trishla Chaturvedi, described as “a well-known personality in the field of astrology” with “a commanding presence on social media with a following of over a million individuals.” The plaintiff boasts over 1.29 million subscribers on YouTube and 834K followers on Instagram.

The court found that defendant no. 1, Umang Taneja, who “claims to be a practitioner of astrology,” had published defamatory videos relating to the plaintiff on various social media platforms. The judge expressed serious concern about the content, stating, “I have perused the various videos/posts filed along with the plaint. The contents thereof are prima facie derogatory in nature.”

In a particularly strong condemnation of the defendant’s conduct, Justice Bansal observed, “The defendant through such videos is seeking to malign the reputation of the plaintiff by accusing her of performing black magic and further portraying her as a drug abuser by morphing a photograph. In yet another video, the plaintiff is referred to as a ‘cheap guest’.”

The court found the material clearly crossed legal boundaries, noting, “Such material, on the face of it, appears to be defamatory and intended to tarnish the image of the plaintiff.”

Justice Bansal highlighted the defendant’s pattern of problematic behavior, observing, “It is also stated that defendant no. 1 is regularly posting defamatory videos against various parties.” The court noted that an injunction had previously been passed against the defendants on June 2, 2025, in CS DJ ADJ 1012/2024, for posting defamatory videos against other parties.

The court further noted the defendant’s criminal history, stating, “The defendant has also been held guilty of the offence of criminal defamation in criminal proceedings filed against the defendant.”

Finding immediate intervention necessary, the court ruled, “A prima facie case is made out on behalf of the plaintiff. The presence of the aforesaid videos would cause irreparable harm and injury to the reputation of the plaintiff.”

The court issued comprehensive relief, directing, “Defendant no. 2 is directed to take down the following videos/posts within 48 hours from service of this order.” The order specified multiple URLs of objectionable content to be removed from social media platforms.

In case of non-compliance, the court provided additional enforcement measures, stating, “In the event the aforesaid videos are not taken down within 48 hours, defendants no. 2 & 3 are directed to take down the aforesaid videos on an expeditious basis.”

The court also imposed prospective restrictions, ordering, “Further, defendant no. 1 is restrained from posting any defamatory videos/posts in relation to the plaintiff till the next date of hearing.”

The case involves multiple defendants, with defendant no. 2 accepting summons through counsel. The court directed that “summons be issued to the defendants no. 1 and 3 through all permissible modes.”

The court further established a structured timeline for proceedings, noting, “The summons shall state that the written statement(s) shall be filed by the defendants within thirty (30) days from the date of the receipt of summons. Along with the written statement(s), the defendants shall also file an affidavit of admission/denial of the documents of the plaintiff.”

The court emphasized procedural compliance, warning, “It is made clear that any unjustified denial of documents may lead to an order of costs against the concerned party.”

The matter has been listed before the Joint Registrar on November 6, 2025, and before the Court on January 20, 2026.

Ms. Swathi Sukumar, Senior Advocate, appeared with Mr. Aditya Trivedi, Ms. Shivani Mishra & Mr. Ritik Raghuwanshi, Advocates for the plaintiff, while Mr. Aditya Gupta & Ms. Vani Kaushik, Advocates represented defendant no. 2.

Case Title: Trishla Chaturvedi vs. Umang Taneja & Ors.

[Read Order]