A Delhi district court, on Thursday, reserved its verdict against a gag order restraining journalist Paranjoy Guha Thakurta from publishing defamatory stories against Adani Enterprise Limited (AEL).
District Judge Sunil Chaudhary of the Rohini Court reserved his order after hearing the arguments from both sides.
Meanwhile, another court allowed a plea filed by four journalists who sought a similar relief against Adani group.
Hearing the challenge by Guha Thakurta, the court observed that the company did not seem certain whether they had been defamed by the journalist.
“What is the relief being asked by you? You’re not yourself sure if it’s defamatory…you’re seeking a declaration from the court. How can [an] injunction be granted if it hasn’t been declared defamatory,” District Judge Chaudhary said on Thursday.
Guha Thakurta moved against an ex-parte interim order passed on September 6 by a Senior Civil Judge in a defamation case filed by AEL. The company alleged that coordinated “defamatory” content was circulated on multiple websites to harm its reputation and disrupt its global operations.
An ex-parte order refers to an order passed without hearing the other party.
The defendants in the case are Guha Thakurta, Nair, Dasgupta, Das, Joshi, Bob Brown Foundation, Dreamscape Network International Private Limited, Getup Limited, Domain Directors Private Limited trading as Instra and John Doe parties.
Appearing for Guha Thakurta, senior advocate Trideep Pais argued that based on the September 6 order, AEL can ask intermediaries to remove whatever they thought was "unverified" and "defamatory".
“The urgency is that intermediaries have been asked to remove multiple articles. Who will determine what will be defamatory has been left to the plaintiff (AEL). That’s my problem with this order,” Pais said.
“It has nowhere been stated how the material is defamatory. There is no reasoning as to how a prima facie case was made out… These companies have 300 media managing units. Today, the plaintiff can write to Google saying please remove this,” Pais said.
Judge Chaudhary asked, “Has this order been served to you? Until then, it cannot be binding on you.”
He also questioned AEL, saying, “If you have been defamed, you should specify the quantum of damages. Here, you are only asking the court for a declaration.”
The judge also questioned AEL regarding what was defamatory in the content shared by Guha Thakurta.
Senior Advocate Anurag Ahluwalia, appearing for AEL, cited an article that compared Adani’s ties with Prime Minister Narendra Modi to Elon Musk’s closeness with US President Donald Trump. The piece alleged that Modi promoted Adani abroad at India’s expense and that rules were bent in the company’s favour.
Judge Chaudhary, however, questioned how this could be defamatory.
“The article is only saying you are friends with the PM,” he remarked, further asking AEL if its shares had fallen because of such posts and whether a prima facie case could be made out.
Ahluwalia argued that repeated articles had been published to damage AEL’s reputation and said a fair journalist would have backed claims with evidence.
“Should I wait for the shares to fall?” he asked.
After hearing this, Judge Chaudhary questioned whether Guha Thakurta had verified his claims and why he had not made the data public.
Replying to the question, Pais said that the material was available but the court had not identified what was prima facie defamatory, and no legal notice was served.
The judge observed that the article made only general claims, such as the government changing orders to benefit Adani, and asked, “But which order? Until a legal notice is sent, can you publish whatever you want?”
After the September 6 order, the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting (MIB) issued takedown notices to several journalists. Pais argued, “Look at paras 22 and 24… AEL can directly ask the intermediary to remove the articles, and any article can be brought under it.”
Meanwhile, a Delhi court allowed a plea filed by four journalists challenging an order restraining them from publishing or circulating alleged unverified and defamatory content against the Adani group.
District Judge Ashish Aggarwal was hearing the appeal filed by journalists Ravi Nair, Abir Dasgupta, Ayaskanta Das and Ayush Joshi against a civil judge's September 6 order.
Acting on Adani's defamation, the civil judge directed 10 defendants, including the four journalists, to take down contentious material already published on various platforms, including websites, articles and social media posts, within a stipulated period.
Advocate Vrinda Grover, representing the four journalists, argued that most of the challenged publications had been in the public domain since June 2024. She argued that there were no urgent circumstances justifying the civil court granting the "extraordinary and exceptional relief" of an ex-parte interim injunction several months after the publications.
Grover criticised sweeping orders restricting press freedom, questioning the legality of barring journalists from reporting on any entity.
“It is a john doe order, in rem, order in future. Is there any law in this country which can ask anyone, particularly the press, that you won’t write or question any entity in this country? That is not what the law allows."
"Please note freedom of speech of expression, the journalists are agents of the press who take this right forward,” she submitted.
The district court, however, observed the civil judge should have provided an opportunity to the defendants before passing the order, pointing out that the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) weren't kept in mind.
"The impugned order is not sustainable. I allow the appeal and set aside the impugned order without any finding on the merits of the case," Judge Aggarwal said.
The matter was remanded to a court to decide it afresh after hearing both sides.