No interim relief from Delhi court for Newslaundry in appeal against John Doe gag order over Adani stories

A Delhi court on Wednesday did not grant any interim relief to digital news platform Newslaundry in their appeal challenging a recent gag order by a civil court by which several entities were restrained from publishing any defamatory content against businessman Gautam Adani’s Adani Enterprises Limited (AEL).

District Judge Sunil Chaudhary noted that Newslaundry was not an aggrieved party since it was not one of the defendants named by Adani in its suit before the civil court.

Further, even if the intermediaries hosting their videos are asked to take down the same due to the John Doe order (order against unknown defendants) passed by the civil court, the platform can challenge the same separately, the Court said.

"Directions intermediaries ko hai. Agar intermediary hata de to uske baad aapke paas remedy hai (Directions have been issued to intermediaries. If an intermediary removes the videos, then you have the remedy)," the Court said.

Therefore, it did not pass any interim order in favour of Newslaundry but sought Adani's reply to the appeal.

The matter will be heard next on October 15.

Background

The gag order in the matter was passed on September 6 by senior civil judge Anuj Kumar Singh of the Rohini Court who ordered removal of the defamatory content against AEL and also asked the journalists to refrain from publishing unverified and defamatory information about the company.

This was after AEL filed a defamation suit filed before the civil judge alleging that certain journalists, activists and organizations 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. 

After considering the case, the civil court ruled that AEL had made a prima facie case for grant of interim injunction. 

Apart from the five named journalists, injunction was also issued against John Doe defendants (unknown defendants). 

This prompted Newslaundry, Thakurta and other journalists to appeal before the district court against the civil court order. 

The appeal filed by journalists Ravi Nair, Abir Dasgupta, Ayaskant Das and Ayush Joshi against the order was allowed by judge Ashish Aggarwal on September 18.

Judge Aggarwal lifted the stay with respect to those journalists.

However, Newslaundry and Thakurta's plea came up for hearing before district judge Chaudhary on Monday. After noting judge Aggarwal's previous order, judge Chaudhary deemed it appropriate that judge Aggarwal should hear these cases. 

Therefore, the matter came up before the Principal District and Sessions Judge on Tuesday for formal assignment of the case to Judge Aggarwal.

However, the Principal District and Sessions Judge decided that the appeals can be heard by Judge Chaudhary and remanded the matter back to him.

Newslaundry's appeal

When the the appeal filed by Newslaundry came up for hearing today, judge Chaudhary asked how the news platform was an aggrieved party.

"Aap kaun hain? Aapne kya videos ya articles daal rakhe hain? Aap party nahi hain civil court k saamne. Jo bhi aapke videos hain usko koi zika plaint me?," the judge asked.

The counsel for Newslaundry said that it is a John Doe order and can operate against unknown defendants and not merely entities who specified as defendants in the suit.

"Order ne intermediary ko power di hai..John Doe order se (Order has given power to the intermediary through John Doe parties)," the counsel said.

"Youtube ne kahin bola hai ki inhone (Adani) applied for take down of the video? (Did the YouTube say that Adani applied for the take down of the video) " the Court asked

"Youtube ne bola hai ki court order ki compliance me videos hatao (YouTube said videos should be removed in compliance of court orders)," Newslaundry's lawyer replied.

"Aap youtube se puchho ki unko kisne approach kiya hai (You ask the YouTube who approached them," the Court suggested.

"Tab tak ham to contempt me aa jaaenge (By then, we would be in contempt)," the counsel responded.

"Court ne direction di hai that Adani Enterprises can approach YouTube for take-down of content. Main ye puchh raha hu ki kya inhone Youtube ko likha hai? Inko (Adani) ko reply ka mauka hai na? (Court has said that Adani can approach Youtube for take-down of content. I am asking if they (Adani) have written to the YouTube? They (Adani) have the right to file a reply no?" the judge said.

Therefore, he refused to pass any interim direction to lift the gag order and sought Adani's reply to the plea.

Paranjoy Thakurta's appeal

On the appeal filed by Thakurta, Senior Advocate Jagdeep Sharma, appearing for Adani Enterprises, argued that the order passed by District Judge Ashish Aggarwal lifting the gag order will not bind Judge Chaudhary.

"I am saying the order passed by Judge Aggarwal setting aside the direction qua four journalists is not binding on this court," Sharma argued.

He further argued that Adani will not initiate any action based on the civil judge's gag order till the interim application is finally disposed of.

"We are saying that till the disposal of the interim relief application before the Senior Civil Judge we will not take any action in pursuance of the impugned order. We will not file any contempt," Sharma said.

Advocate Apar Gupta, representing Thakurta, said,

"Wo articles hain is suit me wo co-authored hain. Wo maine baaki defendants ke sath mil ke likhe hain. Kuch articles pehle hi take down ho gaye hain. Ispe puri sunwai ho chuki hai. Principal District Judge sahab ne ye bhi likh rakha hai. Mere articles pehle hi take down ho gaye hain. Agar ye court mujhe sunti hai aur order paas karti hai to main apne articles restore karwa paaunga."

However, the Court made it clear that it is not bound by the order of Judge Aggarwal.

"Ye court us court ke order (setting aside ex parte order against 4 journalists) se bound nahi hai," Judge Chaudhary stated.

The Court eventually reserved its verdict on Thakurta's plea for interim relief.

[Read Live Coverage]