By Aaratrika

Copyright thehindubusinessline

A Delhi court on Thursday stayed the ex parte injunction that had restrained journalists Ravi Nair, Abir Dasgupta, Ayaskant Das, and Ayush Joshi from publishing allegedly defamatory material about Gautam Adani’s Adani Enterprises Ltd (AEL).

District Judge Ashish Aggarwal of the Rohini Court held that the September 6 order was “unsustainable” as it had been passed without affording the journalists an opportunity of hearing.

“While articles and posts spanning a substantial period were questioned by the plaintiff through the suit, the court did not deem it fit to grant an opportunity of hearing to the defendants before passing the impugned order…In my opinion, the senior civil judge ought to have granted that opportunity before passing an order which had the impact of prima facie declaring the articles as defamatory and even directing their removal,“ he said.

Special Civil Judge Anuj Kumar Singh had restrained nine journalists, activists, and entities from publishing or circulating “unverified, unsubstantiated and ex facie defamatory” reports about AEL, and directed the removal of such content within five days. The order had also allowed the company to identify additional online material it considered defamatory, which intermediaries and platforms were required to take down within 36 hours.

The injunction was sought in a defamation suit where AEL alleged that “coordinated defamatory” content had been published to tarnish its reputation and disrupt its global business operations.

Appearing for the four journalists, advocate Vrinda Grover submitted that the September 6 order contained no finding on whether the publications were defamatory. “[The order] was not the court expressing its mind. It is the reproduction of the plaintiff’s averments and pleadings,” she said.

She pointed out that most of the publications cited in the suit had been available in the public domain since June 2024 and argued that there was no urgency to justify the “extraordinary and exceptional relief” of an ex parte injunction months after their release. “Why the rush? Why was no notice given to us? How have they explained the delay in approaching the court?” she asked.

Ms. Grover further submitted that the case had been filed as a declaration suit instead of a defamation suit, which ordinarily requires a higher threshold of proof. “It is because in defamation, you have to discharge the burden of pointing out which material is defamatory or malicious. I have the justification of truth and fair comment,” she said.

‘Malicious campaign’

On behalf of the conglomerate, advocate Vijay Aggarwal contended that the journalists were engaged in a malicious campaign. “All of them like writing against me…it is a completely malicious targeting”, he said.

Senior advocate Jagdeep Sharma, also appearing for AEL, submitted that the company’s reputation was being unfairly maligned. “I (Mr. Adani) am being tarnished because I am a businessman and working for the nation. Businessmen like Adani or Ambani do not come up overnight. We (AEL) are building the nation. I employ 27,000 people,” he said.

The court, however, noted that the veracity of the contested publications could not be determined at this stage. District Judge Aggarwal orally observed that whether the defendants are able to prove the truth of their articles “would be a subject matter of trial.”

The judge further clarified that his ruling applied only to the four appellants before him and did not extend to the separate appeal filed by senior journalist Paranjoy Guha Thakurta, on which another judge of the same court has reserved judgment. Mr. Thakurta has contended that the impugned order was “overbroad and all-encompassing” and restrained publication without identifying which specific material was defamatory.

Accordingly, the matter was remanded to the senior civil judge with the caveat that the observations in the order were not to be construed as comments on the merits of the dispute.

On September 16, the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting (I&B), citing the impugned September 6 order, had directed several news outlets and independent journalists to remove allegedly defamatory content about AEL. Those who received takedown notices included Newslaundry, The Wire, HW News, Ravish Kumar, Ajit Anjum, Mr. Thakurta, Dhruv Rathee, and satirist Akash Banerjee. Copies of the notice were also sent to Meta and Google, placing responsibility on them as intermediaries to act under the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021.

The Editors Guild of India had said that the gag order was “deeply concerning” and risks chilling legitimate reporting and undermining the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression. It has also urged the judiciary to ensure that defamation claims were addressed through due process and not “one-sided injunctions”.

Published on September 18, 2025