Ravish Kumar moves Delhi High Court against government order to remove content on Adani

Journalist Ravish Kumar has approached the Delhi High Court against a Central government order to remove allegedly defamatory videos on Gautam Adani and his companies from Kumar's YouTube channel.

Kumar has said that Adani's defamation lawsuit against journalists and the subsequent government action represent a "classic Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP), designed to silence legitimate journalism through legal intimidation and resource depletion".

The matter is listed for hearing before Justice Sachin Datta on September 22, Monday.

In a communication issued on September 16, the Central government had ordered Kumar and other YouTubers and news platforms 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 trial court also injuncted the named journalists 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 still stand.

Kumar has nearly 14 million subscribers on his YouTube channel.

In his plea, filed through advocate Shantanu Derhgawen, Kumar has argued that the Central government order represents 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.

"By directing compliance with a private civil court order without statutory authority, procedural compliance, or constitutional justification, the Respondent [Central government] has violated fundamental principles that have been the bedrock of Indian constitutional jurisprudence since independence," he has argued.

The journalist has contended that the government order places a prior restraint on freedom of speech, violates press freedom and democratic discourse, and is an administrative overreach by the government.

Digital news platform Newslaundry has also filed a similar plea before the High Court, which is also listed for hearing before Justice Datta on September 22.