Calcutta High Court restrains circulation of video on Modi-Adani ties on an ad-interim basis in a defamation suit by Adani Enterprises, in an order that is prima facie and does not decide the truth of the claims.
Kolkata: The Calcutta High Court has restrained a YouTuber and social media platforms from circulating a 36-minute video titled “How Modi and Adani Stole India: The Friendship Files”, in a defamation suit filed by Adani Enterprises Limited, and has directed the platforms to take down the video and its reposts until January 31, 2027 or further orders [Adani Enterprises Limited v. Sabeer Bhatia and Others].
Justice Aryak Dutt passed the ad-interim order on October 26, 2026 in CS No. 75 of 2026 on the Original Side. The court said its observations are prima facie, and the allegations in the video and the company’s denial have not been tested at trial.
The suit and the video
Adani Enterprises sued for damages for defamation and for permanent and mandatory injunctions against Sabeer Bhatia, described as the creator of the “Bcubed” YouTube channel and the “@sabeer” X account, the platforms YouTube, X and Instagram, and two unidentified persons said to be involved in uploading and circulating the video. The company argued that the video was false and suppressed facts, that reputation is part of the right to life under Article 21, and that the suit was confined to this video and did not seek to stop criticism of government policy, business concentration or its commercial activity.
It was represented by Senior Advocate Anirban Ray. YouTube was represented virtually by Advocate Pragya Jain. The order does not record arguments by Mr. Bhatia.
Why the Court granted interim relief
The Court noted that pre-trial injunctions in defamation cases that involve public interest call for great caution, citing the Supreme Court’s decision in Bloomberg Television v. Zee Entertainment (2024). It found, prima facie, that the matter fell within the exceptional class because the video is a dramatised narrative that presents its contents as fact, the imputations are assertions of fact, and no finding of any authority supporting them was shown. It also noted that the original upload had already been disabled in India after a government complaint under Rule 3(1)(d) of the IT Rules, 2021, and that reposting after that suggested a lack of good faith.
“The impugned video is not a news report or an account of proceedings.”
The Court found that the balance of convenience lay with the plaintiff, since reposts spread quickly online and reputational harm cannot be fully compensated in money.
The directions
The respondents are restrained from publishing, sharing or otherwise disseminating the video, its clips or materially identical copies, and must remove it from accounts they own or control. YouTube, X and Instagram must remove or disable access to the video at the listed URLs and disable reposts, shares and similar engagement, with the plaintiff to supply specific URLs for some entries. They must preserve subscriber, registration, IP and access logs, disclose basic subscriber details of unidentified accounts in a sealed cover by affidavit within two weeks, and not run advertisements or share revenue on the affected content. One platform must identify an unidentified respondent so that the plaint can be amended.
Affidavits of compliance are due within two weeks. The respondents must file affidavits in opposition within four weeks of service, the plaintiff may reply within two weeks thereafter, and the matter will be heard by the Regular Bench in the January 2027 monthly list.
ALSO READ: Adani Tells Delhi High Court: No Fresh Content Takedown Until Gag Order Appeal Decided
What the order does not bar
The order leaves open constructive criticism of the plaintiff, the Adani Group or government policy, fair reporting on the same subjects, and truthful, evidence-backed reporting, so long as the impugned video, its reproductions and the specified statements are not used. The injunction is temporary and the suit will be decided on evidence.
Case Title: Adani Enterprises Limited v. Sabeer Bhatia and Others [CS No. 75 of 2026, IA/GA No. 1 of 2026]
Bench: Justice Aryak Dutt, Calcutta High Court (Original Side)
Date of Order: October 26, 2026
Appearances: Senior Advocate Anirban Ray with Advocates Sanjay Basu, Amit Kumar Nag, Piyush Agarwal, Shivangi Thard, Ranjabati Ray, Shrivalli Kajaria and Debojyoti Das for the plaintiff; Advocate Pragya Jain for the second respondent