Adani informs Delhi High Court it will not pursue removal of new articles or videos until the appeal against the civil court gag order is resolved. The move affects news platforms and journalists including Newslaundry and Ravish Kumar.
New Delhi: Digital news platform Newslaundry has raised concerns that the Central Government is acting in a biased manner regarding a civil court order that required the removal of allegedly defamatory online articles and news reports about Adani Enterprises Limited.
Senior Advocate Saurabh Kirpal, representing Newslaundry, told Justice Sachin Datta that the government’s communication of the civil court’s gag order was not a simple “intimation” but showed the government’s excitement over the order.
ALSO READ: Supreme Court Allows Parents to Evict Children from Property If They Neglect Them
He said,
“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.”
Meanwhile, Senior Advocate Anurag Ahluwalia, representing Adani, informed the Court that his client will not seek the take down of any new content targeting the entities that have filed appeals against the civil court gag order until the District Court decides those appeals.
The hearing concerned a writ petition filed by Newslaundry challenging the government’s communication.
The news platform argued that this was an overreach since Newslaundry was not a party to the defamation suit filed by Adani in the civil court. A similar petition was also being heard on behalf of journalist Ravish Kumar.
Kirpal argued that the government had overstepped its authority.
“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 explained that the trial court order was only between Adani and certain journalists.
Kirpal said,
“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,”
On the other hand, Central Government Standing Counsel Amit Tiwari defended the government’s action. He stated,
“We only tell the intermediary or the person who has been asked to take down. My job is only to communicate.”
The Court seemed to agree, at least initially, with the government’s argument. It told Kirpal,
“They (the government) are asking you (Newslaundry) to act thereof. The government has asked you to act as per the latest order.”
However, Kirpal countered that the government order was far from a mere intimation of the civil court directions. He said,
“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.”
Kirpal further highlighted that Adani had appeared in the High Court even though it is not a party to the present case, and stressed that Newslaundry’s plea was directed against the government’s take down order.
He added,
“Adani is here, this is an order passed by the government. With Adani, we are fighting at the Rohini Court,”
Senior Advocate Anurag Ahluwalia, appearing for Adani, raised concerns about the restoration of content.
Ahluwalia said,
“They are asking that the material taken down should be restored. The material they are asking to restore will have an impact,”
Senior Advocate Trideep Pais, representing Ravish Kumar, also flagged concerns regarding potential future content being taken down.
Ahluwalia responded by assuring that Adani would not seek the take down of any new content until the sessions court delivers an interim decision in the suit filed by Adani.
However, he clarified that this concession would only apply to Newslaundry, as it alone had filed an appeal before the sessions court. The Court was later informed that Ravish Kumar too had filed an appeal.
The Delhi High Court is hearing petitions from Ravish Kumar and Newslaundry challenging a Central Government order dated September 16, which directed multiple online news platforms and YouTubers to “take appropriate action” in compliance with a trial court order from September 6, mandating the removal of allegedly defamatory content against Adani.
In a defamation suit filed in Delhi’s Rohini Court, Adani Enterprises Limited had sought to prevent several journalists from publishing defamatory stories against the company.
In its September 6 order, the civil court restrained the named journalists, as well as John Doe defendants (unnamed parties), from posting any “defamatory” material about Adani.
On September 18, an appellate court partially stayed the order for four journalists, but the restrictions still applied to the John Doe defendants, including Newslaundry.
On September 16, the Central Government issued a communication directing the take down of the offending content, which was sent to multiple parties including Newslaundry and Ravish Kumar.
Newslaundry argued that its reporting did not include any defamatory content and claimed that the government had gone beyond the trial court’s directions.
According to the plea,
“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.”
The petition further alleged that the government’s take down order was intended to protect the interests of a private party. Advocates Uddhav Khanna and Dhruva Vig filed the petition on behalf of Newslaundry.
Later, Ravish Kumar filed a separate plea arguing that the Central Government order represented an unprecedented and unconstitutional use of executive power.
He said it threatens democratic governance, press freedom, and the separation of powers enshrined in the Constitution of India.
Kumar, who has nearly 14 million subscribers on his YouTube channel, stated that the government’s order imposes prior restraint on freedom of speech, violates press freedom, undermines democratic discourse, and constitutes administrative overreach.
The hearing is set to continue on Friday, September 26, as the Court examines the limits of government intervention in defamation cases and its implications for press freedom in India.
Click Here To Read More Reports on Adani
