A Delhi court on Thursday set aside a lower court’s September 6 order that had restrained journalists and publishers from publishing articles deemed defamatory to Adani Enterprises Ltd (AEL), led by Gautam Adani.

Hearing an appeal filed by journalists Ravi Nair, Abir Dasgupta, Ayaskant Das, and Ayush Joshi, district judge Ashish Aggarwal at Rohini Courts said civil judge Anuj Kumar Singh ought to have heard the respondents before passing the ex-parte order. Ex-parte refers to orders issued without hearing the opposing party in matters of urgency.

“The effect would be in the event of the court of a senior civil judge subsequently finding that the articles are not defamatory… it’s not feasible that removed articles that have been removed would be restored. Therefore in my opinion the trial court should have decided the prayers of the plaintiff after giving a hearing opportunity to the defendants. The impugned order is not sustainable. Accordingly, I allow the appeal and set aside the impugned order without finding the merits of the case,” the judge observed on Thursday. 

District judge Aggarwal noted that the articles were published long ago and said the journalists should have been heard by the civil court before passing such an order.

Another appeal was filed by journalist Paranjoy Guha Thakurta and was heard separately in the morning by district judge Sunil Choudhary, who has reserved his order.

Citing the September 6 order passed by civil judge Anuj Kumar Singh, the Union Ministry of Information and Broadcasting on September 16 issued takedown notices to journalists, media houses and content creators. Newslaundry was among those asked to remove YouTube links and Instagram posts.

In its suit filed earlier this month, AEL sought to restrain Thakurta, Nair, Dasgupta, Das, Joshi, and five others from publishing “defamatory” articles and videos against the company. In his interim order, civil judge Singh wrote: “It would suffice the interest of justice to restrain defendants no. 1 to 10 from publishing/ distributing/ circulating unverified, unsubstantiated and ex-facie defamatory reports about the plaintiff allegedly tarnishing the reputation of the plaintiff till the next date of hearing.” The order further directed that unverified or unsubstantiated content be expunged or, if not feasible, removed within five days.

Representing the four journalists, advocate Vrinda Grover along with Nakul Gandhi argued that the burden of proof was yet to be discharged by AEL, referring to submission of enough evidence to prove defamation by the plaintiff. “All of these are alleged defamatory articles. The burden is yet to be discharged,” she said, adding that most parts of the  interim order were a reproduction of AEL’s allegations.

She further said: “It’s a John Doe order. 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. Tsunami orders of takedown have already happened,” she argued. 

John Doe orders are passed against anonymous parties. This enables legal remedies without delay. The 10th respondent named in the suit is John Doe/Ashok Kumar. 

Grover also noted that most of the articles cited by AEL were published in July 2024 and questioned the haste with which the restraining order was passed.

When asked about the urgency by the court, Vijay Aggarwal, counsel for AEL, said a podcast from August this year was among the cited content, and argued that the law does allow ex-parte orders.

He alleged that these journalists are working like a legal firm, in tandem. “This is not a case of Hindustan Times, TOI, Bennet Coleman or Indian Express. These are self-claimed journalists who act together, write together, file appeals together.” He also claimed the journalists are facing an NIA case and funded by China.

“They are saying that the articles are old. My image has been soiled. Now they have started collecting funds. They are saying: ‘Our legal expenses are mounting so give us chanda’,” said Aggarwal.

Senior Advocate Jagdeep Sharma, also representing Adani Enterprises, said the Hindenburg report is being used repeatedly by journalists in their articles when even the Supreme Court has given a clean chit to the Adani group.

Sharma further argued: “I am being punished because I am an industrialist and I work for the nation. In one report of Hindenburg, billions of dollars of money was wiped off.”

District judge Ashish Aggarwal clarified that the civil judge can now hear the matter without being influenced by his observations.

The takedown notices were sent to 13 news publishers on YouTube and Instagram. Journalists and media outlets received a list of 138 YouTube URLs and 83 Instagram links that were to be removed. The notice was also shared with intermediaries including Google and Meta.

If you’re reading this story, you’re not seeing a single advertisement. That’s because Newslaundry powers ad-free journalism that’s truly in public interest. Support our work and subscribe today.