Gujarat High Court refuses to interfere with interim injunction against Newsclick in Adani defamation suit

The Gujarat High Court recently refused to interfere with an interim injunction granted in favour of Adani Power against Newsclick restraining the latter from publishing defamatory content against the company [Newsclick.In Publisher Of Article Through Prabir Purkayastha v. Adani Power Rajasthan Limited]..The issue arose when Newsclick published two articles on its platform pertaining to the adjudication of Adani's disputes before the Supreme Court. The articles were titled “Justice Arun Mishra’s Final ‘Gift’ of Rs.8,000 crore to Adani” and “Have Justice Arun Mishra’s Judgments helped Adani Group?”Adani filed a ₹100 crore defamation suit against the publication, and sought an injunction restricting the publication and circulation of the articles in question. The City Civil Court at Ahmedabad had granted an interim injunction in favour of Adani Power, in an order dated March 6, 2021..Justice AP Thaker found that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the view of the trial court was reasonable. The Court took into account the tenor of both the articles which appeared to raise doubt that there was something fishy in the delivery of the Supreme Court judgment in favour of Adani.“The tenor of the language used in the Articles, prima-facie, supports the observation made by the trial Court while granting the injunction against the defendant – present appellant,” the order recorded.The Court in appellate jurisdiction could not interfere with the order only on the basis that another view was possible, it was held..Newsclick had moved the High Court against the trial court order, stating that they published the articles as part of their profession, and as a media house, they owed the public a duty to report on issues of public importance.They submitted that since the articles were published in good faith and larger public interest, they could not be construed to defame Adani or the Supreme Court in any manner.Further, it was contended that the articles were not false as they were based on publicly available information, and were therefore not defamatory in nature.Similar articles were reported by various news agencies and tabloids all over India pertaining to the arbitrary listing of the matter before the Supreme Court, and passing of certain orders adversely affecting the overall functioning of the justice delivery system, it was further pointed out.The trial court did not consider that Newsclick formed part of the fourth pillar of the democracy, and restricting their right to free press was against the fundamentals of the Constitution, the publication submitted..Counsel for Adani argued that High Court and Supreme Court judges were silent sufferers since they could not raise grievances publicly against any article or observations made by persons against their functioning.It was submitted that though a judgment’s analysis on a legal touchstone may not be defamatory, imputing allegations of dishonesty on a particular judge was nothing but defamation of the institution..On hearing both the parties, the Court examined the order of the trial court as well as the law governing freedom of speech at length. The Court noted that there could not be interference with the freedom of expression in the name of public interest.“The purpose of the press is to advance the public interest by publishing facts and opinion without which the democratic electorate cannot make a responsible judgment.”However, this freedom was not absolute since no democracy affords absolute and unbridled freedom, and the law of defamation was an effective limitation on the freedom of the press, the order stated..The Court pointed out that there was a universal recognition of the ethics of journalism. Therefore, though the judge acknowledged that there was a right vested in the media to fair comment and to publish truth, it was the duty of the media to substantiate its stand primarily by producing the evidence in respect of the truth..Justice Thaker found that Newsclick had not argued any facts regarding the benefit of almost ₹8000 crore available to Adani and had not placed on record anything to show how this figure had emerged.Thus, the appeal was dismissed..Before concluding its judgment, the Court directed the trial court to expedite the hearing of the suit and decide it within a time-bound period, preferably within four months..Advocate Tarak Damani appeared for Newsclick. Adani Power was represented by Senior Advocate Kamal Trivedi and Advocate Singhi..[Read Judgment]