Journalist Ravish Kumar has challenged the Rohini court’s injunction stopping him from reporting on Adani. He calls the case a direct attack on press freedom and democracy.
New Delhi: Journalist Ravish Kumar has filed an appeal in Delhi’s Rohini Court against the injunction order that stopped him and others from reporting on Adani Enterprises Limited (AEL) and its chairman Gautam Adani.
Earlier, Kumar had already moved the Delhi High Court against a directive of the Central government that forced him to take down his videos about Adani and his companies from his YouTube channel. This government order came after Adani Enterprises filed a defamation case in the Rohini trial court.
Ravish Kumar, who has almost 14 million subscribers on YouTube, strongly opposed the action, calling it an open attack on media independence and journalistic rights.
He described Adani’s defamation case and the government’s order as a
“classic Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP), designed to silence legitimate journalism through legal intimidation and resource depletion.”
The matter is now listed before Justice Sachin Datta of the Delhi High Court and was scheduled for hearing on September 22, Monday.
The controversy started on September 6, when the Rohini trial court, acting on Adani Enterprises’ plea, passed an order restraining Ravish Kumar and other named journalists from publishing or posting anything which it termed defamatory.
The order also extended to John Doe defendants, which means it covered unnamed YouTubers, media platforms, and other online publishers.
Following this, on September 16, the Central government issued notices to Ravish Kumar and several other digital media platforms.
The notice asked them to remove their videos and reports about Adani and to “take appropriate action” in line with the Rohini trial court’s order.
Later, on September 18, an appellate court gave partial relief by modifying the trial court’s order. Four journalists were granted protection, but the restriction on John Doe defendants – which includes a wide range of YouTubers and online platforms – was not removed.
In his petition filed through advocate Shantanu Derhgawen, Ravish Kumar has taken a strong stand against the government’s action. He has argued that the order is unconstitutional and an assault on press freedom, saying it is
“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 has also questioned the government’s authority to enforce a private civil court’s order in this way. He said,
“By directing compliance with a private civil court order without statutory authority, procedural compliance, or constitutional justification, the Respondent [Central government] has violated fundamental principles that have been the bedrock of Indian constitutional jurisprudence since independence.”
The veteran journalist further argued that this is nothing but prior restraint on free speech and harms democracy itself. According to him, it is
“an administrative overreach by the government.”
Meanwhile, digital news platform Newslaundry has also approached the Delhi High Court with a similar petition challenging the same order of the government.
Their plea is also scheduled to be heard by Justice Sachin Datta on September 22.
This entire case is being closely followed across the country, as it brings into focus crucial issues such as freedom of speech, the independence of journalism, and whether the government can legally enforce civil court orders in private defamation disputes.
Click Here To Read More Reports on Caste Survey
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
