Rohini court reserves verdict in Paranjoy Guha Thakurta plea to quash gag order on Adani stories

A Delhi court on Thursday reserved its order in an appeal against a gag order restraining journalists Paranjoy Guha from publishing defamatory stories against Adani Enterprise Limited (AEL).

District Judge Sunil Chaudhary of the Rohini Court reserved the order after hearing the parties at length.

Appearing for Thakurta, Senior Advocate Trideep Pais said,

"The urgency is that an order has been passed by Central government to intermediaries to remove all the materials."

Stating that all the companies mentioned in the allegedly defamatory articles are not Adani's, Pais argued,

"They say my reporting is damaging India's energy interests. Trying to equate themselves with India. Court did not say how the material is defamatory or if the injunction is not granted it will cause irreparable loss...The order says they (AEL) have not been found guilty of anything. But that is not the test of defamation."

He went on to argue,

"A site has many articles. The judge has left it to the plaintiff to write to the intermediaries and get removed anything they find defamatory...The plaintiff has been put in the shoes of a judge."

Pais then questioned how the Central government could take action if it is not a party to the proceedings.

The court then asked counsel for Adani how the Rohini Court has jurisdiction in the matter. Appearing for Adani, Advocate Vijay Aggarwal said that the defamation was online. Another counsel sought an injunction on the articles until the court decides the matter. However, Judge Chaudhary said,

"Till the court makes a declaration, how can the injunction be passed?"

When Aggarwal said that Adani has yet to file a reply, the court said,

"To aap reply file kare hum tab tak stay kar dete hain. Aapne to caveat file kar rakha tha. Inko to pata bhi nahi tha ki aap Rohini main suit file karoge. (You file a reply, till then we will stay the order. You have filed a caveat. They didn't even you would file a suit in Rohini Court)."

Senior Advocate Anurag Ahluwalia, appearing for Adani Enterprises, said that the Supreme Court had given a clean chit to the company. After taking the court through the order under challenge, he said,

"The court has given a finding that the further publication and circulation may tarnish my image."

After being taken through the contents of Thakurta's article, the court asked,

"What line is defamatory?"

"That government tweaked norms for me," Ahluwalia replied. However, the court asked,

"To isme aapko kya dikkat ho rahi hai? (What is your problem with that?)"

Ahluwalia then took the court through another alleging that the Modi government altered rules for the company's benefit. At this juncture, the court asked the counsel to show how such articles affected Adani's shares.

"Yesterday, they started with saying that the Central government is in our pocket," Ahluwalia said. The court replied,

"Aap bhi kisi ko pocket main hoge. Bolta rahe...Koi kuchh bhi bolta hai. (You are also in someone's pocket. Let them say... people will say things)."

Referring to another article, Ahluwalia said,

"Is article ki language...they declare it as a scam. When you have such materials, you don't publish but you go around and say there is a scam. Our agony is that the buck doesn't stop here. Time and again, there are articles tarnishing me. If they are journalists...They are sitting and scheming in the room, making up stories. Should I wait for my shares to go down...My lord should ask them what is the China angle behind them."

Aggarwal even pointed out that Thakurta was being investigated by the National Investigation Agency (NIA) in a terror case.

As Pais made rejoinder arguments, the court asked,

"What material does he have for writing this article?"

Pais replied that the US material was in public domain.

After hearing counsel for Adani in rejoinder, the court reserved its order.

Notably, Thakurta's appeal against the injunction was listed on Wednesday before another court, which denied the urgent hearing in the case.

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.

They have argued that AEL has not been mentioned in their news reports, and they only refer to Gautam Adani or the Adani Group.

"It is submitted that a bare perusal of the reproduced portions of the alleged defamatory articles clearly reveals that at no place has the Plaintiff been called out, referred to, or even remotely mentioned. In each and every impugned publication, the references are confined exclusively to Mr. Gautam Adani or to the Adani Group," the petition states.

Thakurta in his appeal has said that the court passed an over-broad and all-encompassing restraining order without specifying which content was found to be defamatory. 

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.

The appeal on behalf of Thakurta was filed through Advocates Apar Gupta, Indumugi C and Naman Kumar.

The appeal on behalf of Ravi Nair, Abir Dasgupta, Ayaskant Das and Ayush Joshi was filed by NG Law Chambers through Advocate Nakul Gandhi.