Follow TNM’s WhatsApp channel for news updates and story links.
A Delhi court, on Thursday, September 18, quashed the ex-parte gag order passed on September 6 by a lower court that had restrained journalists from publishing or circulating allegedly defamatory reports about Adani Enterprises Limited (AEL).
District Judge Ashish Aggarwal of the Rohini Courts allowed the appeal filed by journalists Ravi Nair, Abir Dasgupta, Ayaskant Das, and Ayush Joshi. The judge held that the sweeping order, which directed the removal of numerous articles and posts, was unsustainable as it had been passed without granting the journalists a chance to be heard.
The ruling, however, was confined to the appeal filed by the journalists and did not touch upon the broader John Doe directions or the separate challenge filed by senior journalist Paranjoy Guha Thakurta, on which the court has reserved judgement.
The September 6 gag order by senior civil judge Anuj Kumar Singh had directed removal of allegedly defamatory material against AEL and barred several journalists, including Paranjoy Guha Thakurta, from publishing further such content. Following the order, the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting issued takedown notices to digital platforms and creators, leading to removal requests for 138 YouTube videos and 83 Instagram posts, including satire and interviews only tangentially mentioning Adani.
‘Civil judge didn’t hear the journalists’
Quashing the gag order, judge Aggarwal observed, “While articles and posts spanning a substantial period were questioned by plaintiff through the suit, the court didn’t deem it fit to grant opportunity of hearing to defendants before passing impugned order.” He added, “In my opinion, the civil judge ought to have granted that opportunity before passing an order, which had the impact of prima facie declaring articles as defamatory and even directing their removal.”
The judge cautioned that such directions could cause irreversible consequences if later found unwarranted. “In the event of the court of a senior civil judge subsequently finding that the articles are not defamatory, after defendants put forth their defence, it is not feasible that articles which have been removed would then be restored,” the order stated.
Advocate Vrinda Grover, representing the journalists, had argued that most of the impugned material had been in the public domain since June 2024 and that no emergent circumstances justified an extraordinary ex-parte injunction. “Why the rush? Why could no notice have been given to us for two days? Majority of publications are from June 2024 onwards,” she contended, Live Law reported.
Grover further described the civil court’s September 6 order as “blanket” and “over-arching,” noting that it led to the takedown of hundreds of videos and posts. She argued that the plaintiff company had not proven the locus standi to sue on behalf of its founder Gautam Adani. “The individual is not before [the court]. Does this plaintiff have a locus in this case is also a question in this appeal,” she submitted.
Adani alleges ‘malicious campaign’
On behalf of Adani Enterprises, advocate Vijay Aggarwal maintained that the journalists were engaged in a malicious campaign, pointing to a podcast that was circulated online in August. “Every tweet, retweet, and like amounts to republication. It is happening even now,” he said.
Senior advocate Jagdeep Sharma, also appearing for Adani, defended the company’s position by saying, “I am being tarnished because I am a businessman and working for the nation. Businessmen like Adani or Ambani do not come up overnight. We are building the nation. I employ 27,000 people,” according to Bar and Bench.
While quashing the September 6 gag order, district judge Aggarwal clarified that his ruling applied only to the four appellants before him and did not touch upon the separate appeal filed by senior journalist Paranjoy Guha Thakurta, on which the court has reserved judgement.
The defamation suit by Adani Enterprises continues before the trial court.