Digital news platform Newslaundry and journalist Ravish Kumar arrived at an agreement with Adani Enterprises Limited (AEL) on Friday to maintain status quo as it exists today with respect to the dispute between them over allegedly defamatory articles about AEL and their removal from internet.

According to the understanding arrived at by the parties, Newslaundry and Kumar will not be obligated to pull down any existing articles on the internet. However, any material already pulled down pursuant to a civil court gag order and subsequent government communication of that order, will not be uploaded again.

This arrangement will continue until the civil court gives a final decision on the interim injection plea by AEL seeking take down of all defamatory content against it.

Justice Sachin Datta recorded this arrangement and disposed of the two writ petitions filed by Newslaundry and Kumar challenging the government communication of the gag order.

"The plaintiff will not take down any material as existing as on today. It is agreed that in case it has taken down any material same shall not be uploaded. Understanding shall subsist until the interim injunction is decided," the High Court said in its order.

Ravish Kumar and Newslaundry approached the Delhi High Court against an order dated September 16 of the Central government, directing several online news publishers and YouTubers to "take appropriate action" in compliance with the trial court order of September 6, for the removal of defamatory content against Adani.

A defamation suit filed by Adani Enterprises Limited (AEL) in Delhi's Rohini Court had sought to injunct many journalists from writing defamatory stories against the company.

In the September 6 order, the civil court injuncted the journalists named as defendants to suit as well as John Doe defendants (unnamed defendants) from publishing 'defamatory' content about Adani. 

On September 18, an appellate court partially set aside the order with respect to four journalists. However, the directions to the John Doe defendants including Newslaundry still stand.

Meanwhile, the government issued a communication on September 16 directing take down of offending content. The same was issued to Newslaundry and Ravish Kumar as well.

Newslaundry then moved the High Court arguing that its reporting does not contain anything defamatory about Adani and that the Central government went over and above the trial court's directions. 

"The Respondent [Central government] has gone over and above the directions of the Ld Trial Court, by requiring the Petitioner and other recipients of the Impugned Order to remove all and every video/publication/ reporting undertaken wrt to the plaintiff [Adani Enterprises Limited], without going into the aspect that the said video/publication/ reporting could be a simple reporting on facts/ current affairs in exercise of their journalistic duties," Newslaundry's plea said.

According to the petition, the government's takedown order was passed to protect the interests of a private party.

Newslaundry filed the plea through advocates Uddhav Khanna and Dhruva Vig.

Later, Ravish Kumar also moved the High Court arguing that the Central government order was an unprecedented and unconstitutional exercise of executive power that strikes at the very foundation of democratic governance, press freedom and the separation of powers doctrine enshrined in the Constitution of India. 

Kumar, who has nearly 14 million subscribers on his YouTube channel, contended that the government order places a prior restraint on freedom of speech, violates press freedom and democratic discourse and amounted an administrative overreach by the government. 

Senior Advocate Saurabh Kirpal, appearing for Newslaundry, argued on September 25 that the government's communication of the civil court's gag order to the news platform was not in the nature of mere 'intimation'; rather it reflected the government's excitement over the order.

"Nobody wants to live in a democracy where there is a government threat. The order impugned is not in nature of an intimation to intermediary. The order says 'you are directed'. This is by someone who has gotten excited," Kirpal contended.

Meanwhile, Senior Advocate Anurag Ahluwalia, appearing for Adani, told the Court that it will not seek take down of any fresh content against those entities which have filed appeal against the civil court gag order until the plea for injunction is finally decided.

Central Government Standing Counsel Amit Tiwari said that the government was merely communicating the order passed by the civil court.

"We only tell the intermediary or the person who has been asked to take down. My job is only to communicate," Tiwari submitted.

Senior Advocate Trideep Pais, appearing for Ravish Kumar, also flagged concerns about future content being taken down.

The parties eventually arrived at an understanding to maintain status quo.

[Read Live Coverage]