Delhi court sets aside order restraining journalists from publishing stories against Adani Enterprises

A Delhi court on Thursday set aside a gag order restraining journalists Ravi Nair, Abir Dasgupta, Ayaskant Das and Ayush Joshi from publishing allegedly defamatory stories against Adani Enterprise Limited (AEL).

District Judge Ashish Aggarwal of the Rohini Court held,

"I am of the opinion that the sessions court ought to have made an opinion of the content. While articles and posts spanning a substantial period (2024-2025) were questioned by the plaintiff, the court did not deem it fit to grant an opportunity of hearing to the defendants...In my opinion that opportunity ought to have been granted before passing the order...That not having been done, the order is not sustainable. The order is set aside. The order will be applicable only qua the appellants before this court."

Advocates Vrinda Grover and Nakul Gandhi appeared for the journalists. Grover argued at the outset,

"An ex parte ad interim order has been obtained for a June 2024 article. What rush? Why no notice even of two days or three days? The court would have had the benefit of hearing us...The company which runs one of the largest media houses in the country says it ran into these articles just now?"

Pointing out that hundreds of videos and posts have been brought down as a result of this order, Grover said,

"They are asking for intermediaries to take it down. There are prayers of John Doe. The prayers are over-arching and sweeping. When you are asking for the sun and moon the burden on them is higher...There is no reason given for passing extraordinary tsunami order."

Grover questioned the filing of the suit as a declaration suit under the guise of a defamation suit to bypass the higher burden required in defamation suits.

"Whether it is unsubstantiated unverified or defamatory is the nub of the suit. Why the suit for declaration is a question I ask. 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."

Questioning the jurisdiction of the court, Grover said,

"The plaintiff (Adani Enterprises) is a company and the articles deal with an individual. There is nothing against this plaintiff. Does this plaintiff even have a locus before this court?"

Advocate Vijay Aggarwal made arguments on behalf of AEL. He said,

"These defendants are fed by the Chinese government and against these people NIA investigation is going on."

On the allegations made in the articles that the Central government was favouring Adani, he said,

"They say rules have been bent and the company has been favoured by the government. How? When? Why? Nothing."

At this juncture, the court said,

"If the court is faced with the defamation case it is supposed to verify the veracity of the accusations. Has the Supreme Court said that it [its order in Hindenburg case] will become a finding of the fact?"

Although the court initially said that it would stay the order in question and issue notice in the matter, it went on to hear final arguments by Adani.

Senior Advocate Jagdeep Sharma submitted,

"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."

The court then said,

"Whether they are able to establish the truth of their articles will be tested in the trial."

As they continued arguing, the court said,

"If you argue for two or three days then the other side will also argue for two or three days and then I will need some time to write the order. I will stay the order in the meantime."

Even as counsel for Adani protested, the court said,

"Okay I will not pass any interim order, I will pass a final order."

Grover then accused the lawyers on the other side of trying to "overwhelm the court".

In the order passed on September 6, Senior Civil Judge Anuj Kumar Singh of the Rohini Court had ordered removal of the defamatory content against AEL and also asked the journalists to refrain from publishing unverified and defamatory information about the company. 

The journalists then filed two separate challenges to the order.

One appeal is by Paranjoy Guha Thakurta and the other appeal has been filed collectively by Ravi Nair, Abir Dasgupta, Ayaskant Das and Ayush Joshi.

Pertinently, the Court today reserved its verdict on Thakurta's appeal.

In the defamation suit before the civil judge, Adani Enterprises had alleged that certain journalists, activists and organisations damaged its reputation and cost its stakeholders billions of dollars by causing massive loss to its image, brand equity and credibility of India’s brand as a country.

Adani Enterprises argued that these journalists and activists have “aligned with anti-India interests and have been continuously targeting Adani Enterprises’ infrastructure and energy projects which are critical to India’s infrastructure and energy security and have disrupted these projects with ulterior motives”.

AEL referred to the articles published on paranjoy.in, adaniwatch.org and adanifiles.com.au and said that these websites have repeatedly published defamatory content against the company, the Adani Group, as well as its founder and chairman Gautam Adani.

Advocates Vrinda Grover, Nakul Gandhi, Soutik Banerjee, Mujeeb, and Tanish Gupta appeared for the journalists.