Today, On 23rd September, The Delhi Court has refused to transfer the Adani gag order appeal. Newslaundry and journalist Paranjoy Guha Thakurta will now be heard by the judge who had earlier set aside the stay for other journalists.
The Principal District and Sessions Judge of the Rohini Court announced that the appeal by journalist Paranjoy Guha Thakurta and the digital news platform Newslaundry regarding a gag order on reporting about Adani will be heard by District Judge Sunil Chaudhary, rather than Judge Ashish Aggarwal, who had previously partially set aside the order.
Principal District and Sessions Judge Gurvinder Pal Singh stated that the cases would be addressed on September 24 by Judge Chaudhary.
Earlier On Monday, Judge Chaudhary had suggested that it would be suitable for Judge Aggarwal to continue handling the cases since he had already issued orders related to the matter.
The cases were brought before the Principal District and Sessions Judge today following Judge Chaudhary’s choice to transfer them. Advocate Vijay Aggarwal, representing Adani Enterprises Limited, opposed the transfer during the hearing. In contrast, the legal counsel for Newslaundry and Thakurta expressed their agreement for Judge Chaudhary to hear the case.
The Court ordered in Thakurta’s case,
“The extensive arguments having been heard by District Judge 4 (Judge Chaudhary), it would be expedient in the interest of justice that the adjudication of the appeal may be appropriately done as per law by the court of DJ to which the case has been assigned. Accordingly, the case be sent to District Judge 4,”
Regarding Newslaundry’s appeal, the Court stated,
“It is appellant’s submission that he has full faith in the appellate court to which appeal was assigned and he has no problem if the case is heard and decided by the appellate court of DJ 4… File of the case be sent back to DJ 4 to hear and adjudicate the matter in accordance with law. Parties to appear before the DJ 4 on September 24.”
The gag order in question was issued on September 6 by Senior Civil Judge Anuj Kumar Singh of the Rohini Court, which mandated the removal of content deemed defamatory against Adani Enterprises Limited (AEL) and instructed journalists to refrain from publishing unverified and defamatory information about the company.
In addition to the five named journalists, the injunction also affected John Doe defendants . This prompted Newslaundry, Thakurta, and other journalists to appeal the civil court’s order before the district court.
The appeals submitted by journalists Ravi Nair, Abir Dasgupta, Ayaskant Das, and Ayush Joshi were accepted by Judge Ashish Aggarwal on September 18, lifting the stay on those journalists.
However, the plea from Newslaundry and Thakurta was presented to District Judge Chaudhary on Monday. After noting Judge Aggarwal’s earlier ruling, Judge Chaudhary determined it would be fitting for Judge Aggarwal to continue overseeing these cases.
As a result, the Principal District and Sessions Judge convened today for the formal assignment of the cases to Judge Aggarwal.
However, the Principal District and Sessions Judge ultimately decided that the appeals could be addressed by Judge Chaudhary and remanded the matter to him.
This case originated from a defamation suit filed by Adani Enterprises in the civil court, alleging that certain journalists, activists, and organizations harmed its reputation and caused significant financial damage by undermining its image, brand equity, and India’s credibility as a nation.
Adani Enterprises contended that these journalists and activists had “aligned with anti-India interests and have been continuously targeting Adani Enterprises’ infrastructure and energy projects which are critical to India’s infrastructure and energy security and have disrupted these projects with ulterior motives.”
AEL referenced articles published on paranjoy.in, adaniwatch.org, and adanifiles.com.au, claiming that these platforms repeatedly disseminated defamatory content against the company, the Adani Group, and its founder and chairman, Gautam Adani.
After reviewing the case, the civil court concluded that AEL had established a prima facie case for granting an interim injunction, leading to the subsequent appeals before the district court.