Delhi High Court disposes petitions filed by Ravish Kumar and Newslaundry challenging the Centre’s take-down orders on Adani-related content, highlighting press freedom, corporate accountability, and ongoing legal proceedings in India.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: In a landmark development concerning press freedom and corporate accountability, the Delhi High Court on Friday, September 26, 2025, disposed of petitions filed by journalist Ravish Kumar and the digital news platform Newslaundry. These pleas challenged the Centre’s directives seeking the removal of reports and videos on Adani Enterprises Limited (AEL).
Court’s Observation
A bench led by Justice Sachin Datta noted that the petitioners had reached an “understanding” with Adani Enterprises. According to this arrangement:
- No content hosted on the petitioners’ websites or intermediaries as of 12:00 PM on September 26, 2025, will be taken down.
- Any material already removed will not be re-uploaded.
- The arrangement is valid only until AEL’s interim injunction application in the civil suit is adjudicated.
The Court also allowed Adani Enterprises’ impleadment in both matters and directed the petitioners to file amended memos of parties accordingly.
During proceedings, Senior Advocate Saurabh Kirpal for Newslaundry highlighted that the status quo should continue until the interim injunction is decided. Representing Adani, Senior Advocate Anurag Ahluwalia clarified that instead of pursuing an appeal, the petitioners would approach the Senior Civil Judge to argue their application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC.
Justice Datta further directed the Union of India to issue a corrigendum in light of the order, while emphasizing that the judgment does not reflect the Court’s opinion on the merits of the matter.
Background of the Dispute
The legal tussle arose after the Central Government issued take-down directions to Ravish Kumar and Newslaundry concerning content allegedly defaming Adani Enterprises. Ravish Kumar, through advocate Shantanu Derhgawen, contended that the orders violated press freedom, which is a constitutional safeguard under Articles 14, 19, and 21. Kumar’s content focuses on corporate accountability, public interest journalism, and democratic oversight, he argued.
Similarly, Newslaundry challenged a directive by the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting (MIB), issued on September 16, 2025, mandating the removal of articles and videos deemed defamatory by AEL. These directives were based on an ex parte gag order by the Rohini District Court dated September 6, 2025, against journalist Paranjoy Guha Thakurta and others. The court had restrained publication of content alleging reputational harm to AEL.
In a related development, the Delhi District Court recently set aside the Rohini trial court’s sweeping gag order. The appellate court held that broad pre-publication restrictions were legally unsustainable and highlighted risks posed by reliance on intermediaries for content removal. The order protected appellants from immediate compliance until further adjudication.
Case Title:
Newslaundry vs Union of India, Ravish Kumar vs Union of India