Will not seek takedown of fresh content till appeal against gag order is decided: Adani to Delhi High Court

Digital news platform Newslaundry on Thursday alleged that the Central government was acting in a partisan manner in the case relating to a civil court order to remove defamatory online articles and news about Adani Enterprises Limited.

Senior Advocate Saurabh Kirpal, appearing for Newslaundry, told Justice Sachin Datta that the government's communication of the civil court's gag order to the news platform was not in the nature of mere 'intimation'; rather it reflected the government's excitement over the order.

"Nobody wants to live in a democracy where there is a government threat. The order impugned is not in nature of an intimation to intermediary. The order says 'you are directed'. This is by someone who has gotten excited," Kirpal contended.

Meanwhile, Senior Advocate Anurag Ahluwalia, appearing for Adani, told the Court that it will not seek take down of any fresh content against those entities which have filed appeal against the civil court gag order until the District Court decides the appeals against that order.

The Court was hearing a writ petition filed by Newslaundry challenging the government communication on the ground that it was an overreach since Newslaundry was not a party to the defamation suit filed by Adani before the civil court. Also being heard was a similar petition against the government order filed by journalist Ravish Kumar.

Kirpal, appearing for Newslaundry, submitted that the government overstepped its jurisdiction.

"Government has told us to take down certain material on the basis of trial court order. That (trial court) order has been stayed."

He further said that the trial court order was between Adani and certain other journalists.

"Government is seeking to enforce order between two people. Under what provision has the government directed us to take down? Why is the government stepping in? I am a content provider, not an intermediary," Kirpal said.

Central Government Standing Counsel Amit Tiwari said that it was merely communicating the order passed by the court.

"We only tell the intermediary or the person who has been asked to take down. My job is only to communicate," Tiwari submitted.

The Court prima facie agreed with the argument by the government.

"They (the government) are asking you (Newslaundry) to act thereof. The government has asked you to act as per the latest order," the Court said to Kirpal.

However, Kirpal said that the government order was not a mere intimation of the civil court directions.

"I am not an appellant in the case. Nobody wants to live in a democracy where there is a government threat. The order impugned is not in nature of an intimation to intermediary," he contended.

He also said that Adani has entered appearance in the High Court though it is not a party to the present case and that Newslaundry's plea is against the government's take down order.

"Adani is here, this is an order passed by the government. With Adani, we are fighting at the Rohini Court," Kirpal said.

Senior Advocate Anurag Ahluwalia, appearing for Adani, said that Newslaundry is seeking restoration of content which has been pulled down.

"They are asking that the taken down material should be restored. The material they are asking to restore will have an impact," Ahluwalia said.

Senior Advocate Trideep Pais, appearing for Ravish Kumar, also flagged concerns about future content being taken down.

Ahluwalia agreed that Adani will not seek take down of any fresh content until the sessions court decides on the interim relief in the suit filed by Adani.

However, the same concession will be available only to Newslaundry and not Kumar since the news platform alone has filed an appeal before the sessions court, Adani's counsel submitted.

The Court was then informed that Ravish Kumar too has filed an appeal before the sessions court.

The hearing in the case will continue on Friday, September 26.

Ravish Kumar and Newslaundry approached the Delhi High Court against an order dated September 16 of the Central government, directing several online news publishers and YouTubers 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 civil court injuncted the journalists named as defendants to suit 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 including Newslaundry still stand.

Meanwhile, the government issued a communication on September 16 directing take down of offending content. The same was issued to many defendants, including Newslaundry and Ravish Kumar.

Newslaundry then moved the High Court arguing that its reporting does not contain anything defamatory about Adani and that the Central government went over and above the trial court's directions. 

"The Respondent [Central government] has gone over and above the directions of the Ld Trial Court, by requiring the Petitioner and other recipients of the Impugned Order to remove all and every video/publication/ reporting undertaken wrt to the plaintiff [Adani Enterprises Limited], without going into the aspect that the said video/publication/ reporting could be a simple reporting on facts/ current affairs in exercise of their journalistic duties," Newslaundry's plea said.

According to the petition, the government's takedown order was passed to protect the interests of a private party.

Newslaundry filed the plea through Advocates Uddhav Khanna and Dhruva Vig.

Later, Ravish Kumar also moved the High Court arguing that the Central government order was 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. 

Kumar, who has nearly 14 million subscribers on his YouTube channel, contended that the government order places a prior restraint on freedom of speech, violates press freedom and democratic discourse and amounted an administrative overreach by the government. 

[Read Live Coverage]