Today, On 18th September, Rohini Court has reserved its verdict on journalist Paranjoy Guha Thakurta’s plea to quash the gag order on Adani articles. The court will decide whether the directive restricting publication can be lifted after hearing all arguments.
A Delhi court has reserved its decision regarding an appeal filed against a gag order that prevents journalist Paranjoy Guha from publishing potentially defamatory articles about Adani Enterprise Limited (AEL).
District Judge Sunil Chaudhary of the Rohini Court made this decision after a thorough hearing of the involved parties.
During the proceedings, Senior Advocate Trideep Pais, representing Thakurta, stated,
“The urgency is that an order has been passed by Central government to intermediaries to remove all the materials.”
Pais emphasized that not all companies mentioned in the articles in question are affiliated with Adani.
He argued,
“They say my reporting is damaging India’s energy interests. Trying to equate themselves with India. Court did not say how the material is defamatory or if the injunction is not granted it will cause irreparable loss…The order says they (AEL) have not been found guilty of anything. But that is not the test of defamation.”
He further contended,
“A site has many articles. The judge has left it to the plaintiff to write to the intermediaries and get removed anything they find defamatory…The plaintiff has been put in the shoes of a judge.”
Pais also raised concerns about how the Central government could take action in this case if it is not a party to the proceedings.
The court inquired of Adani’s counsel regarding the jurisdiction of the Rohini Court over the case.
Advocate Vijay Aggarwal, representing Adani, argued that the defamation occurred online. Another attorney requested an injunction on the articles until the court reaches a decision.
However, Judge Chaudhary remarked,
“Till the court makes a declaration, how can the injunction be passed?”
When Aggarwal noted that Adani had not yet submitted a reply, the court responded,
“To aap reply file kare hum tab tak stay kar dete hain. Aapne to caveat file kar rakha tha. Inko to pata bhi nahi tha ki aap Rohini main suit file karoge. (You file a reply, till then we will stay the order. You have filed a caveat. They didn’t even know you would file a suit in Rohini Court).”
Senior Advocate Anurag Ahluwalia, representing Adani Enterprises, stated that the Supreme Court had cleared the company of any wrongdoing.
As he presented the court with the order under challenge, he said,
“The court has given a finding that the further publication and circulation may tarnish my image.”
Upon reviewing Thakurta’s article, the court asked,
“What line is defamatory?”
Ahluwalia responded,
“That government tweaked norms for me.”
The court then inquired,
“To isme aapko kya dikkat ho rahi hai? (What is your problem with that?)”
Ahluwalia continued, presenting another claim that the Modi government changed regulations for the company’s advantage. At this point, the court requested evidence of how such articles impacted Adani’s shares.
Ahluwalia remarked,
“Yesterday, they started with saying that the Central government is in our pocket,”
The court replied,
“Aap bhi kisi ko pocket main hoge. Bolta rahe…Koi kuchh bhi bolta hai. (You are also in someone’s pocket. Let them say… people will say things).”
Referring to another article, Ahluwalia stated,
“Is article ki language…they declare it as a scam. When you have such materials, you don’t publish but you go around and say there is a scam. Our agony is that the buck doesn’t stop here. Time and again, there are articles tarnishing me. If they are journalists…They are sitting and scheming in the room, making up stories. Should I wait for my shares to go down…My lord should ask them what is the China angle behind them.”
Aggarwal even noted that Thakurta was under investigation by the National Investigation Agency (NIA) in a terror case.
As Pais made his rebuttal, the court asked,
“What material does he have for writing this article?”
Pais replied that the US material was available in the public domain.
After hearing the arguments from Adani’s counsel in rebuttal, the court reserved its order.
Earlier, On September 6, Senior Civil Judge Anuj Kumar Singh of the Rohini Court issued an order to remove defamatory content regarding AEL and instructed journalists to refrain from publishing unverified and harmful information about the company.
In response, the journalists filed two distinct challenges to this order, contending that AEL was not named in their reports and that they only referred to Gautam Adani or the Adani Group.
The petition states,
“It is submitted that a bare perusal of the reproduced portions of the alleged defamatory articles clearly reveals that at no place has the Plaintiff been called out, referred to, or even remotely mentioned. In each and every impugned publication, the references are confined exclusively to Mr. Gautam Adani or to the Adani Group,”
In his appeal, Thakurta criticized the court for issuing a broad and vague restraining order without identifying which specific content was deemed defamatory.
In the defamation lawsuit, Adani Enterprises claimed that certain journalists, activists, and organizations tarnished its reputation, resulting in significant financial losses for its stakeholders and damaging India’s image, brand equity, and credibility.
Adani Enterprises alleged that these journalists and activists have “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 pointed to articles published on paranjoy.in, adaniwatch.org, and adanifiles.com.au, asserting that these websites have consistently disseminated defamatory content against the company, the Adani Group, and its founder and chairman, Gautam Adani.
Thakurta’s appeal was submitted through Advocates Apar Gupta, Indumugi C, and Naman Kumar, while the appeal for Ravi Nair, Abir Dasgupta, Ayaskant Das, and Ayush Joshi was filed by NG Law Chambers via Advocate Nakul Gandhi.