A Delhi court has set aside a gag order that had restrained four journalists from publishing stories against Adani Enterprises. The court ruled that the earlier order was unsustainable as the journalists were not given a fair hearing.
New Delhi: A Delhi court on Thursday cancelled a gag order that had earlier prevented journalists Ravi Nair, Abir Dasgupta, Ayaskant Das, and Ayush Joshi from publishing stories against Adani Enterprises Limited (AEL).
District Judge Ashish Aggarwal of Rohini Court held that the earlier order was wrong because the journalists were not given a fair chance to present their side.
The judge said,
“I am of the opinion that the sessions court ought to have made an opinion of the content. While articles and posts spanning a substantial period (2024-2025) were questioned by the plaintiff, the court did not deem it fit to grant an opportunity of hearing to the defendants…In my opinion that opportunity ought to have been granted before passing the order…That not having been done, the order is not sustainable. The order is set aside. The order will be applicable only qua the appellants before this court.”
The journalists were represented by advocates Vrinda Grover and Nakul Gandhi. Grover strongly argued against the way the earlier order was passed. She said,
“An ex parte ad interim order has been obtained for a June 2024 article. What rush? Why no notice even of two days or three days? The court would have had the benefit of hearing us…The company which runs one of the largest media houses in the country says it ran into these articles just now?”
She also pointed out that several online posts and videos had been deleted after the order, and said,
“They are asking for intermediaries to take it down. There are prayers of John Doe. The prayers are over-arching and sweeping. When you are asking for the sun and moon the burden on them is higher…There is no reason given for passing extraordinary tsunami order.”
Grover further questioned the very filing of the case, saying that it was disguised as a declaration suit instead of a defamation case. According to her,
“Whether it is unsubstantiated unverified or defamatory is the nub of the suit. Why the suit for declaration is a question I ask. It is because in defamation you have to discharge the burden of pointing out which material is defamatory or malicious. I have the justification of truth and fair comment.”
She also raised objections about jurisdiction, arguing,
“The plaintiff (Adani Enterprises) is a company and the articles deal with an individual. There is nothing against this plaintiff. Does this plaintiff even have a locus before this court?”
On the other hand, Advocate Vijay Aggarwal, appearing for AEL, attacked the journalists by saying,
“These defendants are fed by the Chinese government and against these people NIA investigation is going on.”
Responding to allegations made in the articles that the Central government was favouring Adani, he said,
“They say rules have been bent and the company has been favoured by the government. How? When? Why? Nothing.”
At this stage, the court intervened and said,
“If the court is faced with the defamation case it is supposed to verify the veracity of the accusations. Has the Supreme Court said that it [its order in Hindenburg case] will become a finding of the fact?”
Initially, the judge considered staying the gag order and issuing notice, but later heard final arguments from Adani’s side. Senior Advocate Jagdeep Sharma, appearing for Adani, told the court,
“I am being tarnished because I am a businessman and working for the nation. Businessmen like Adani or Ambani do not come up overnight. We are building the nation. I employ 27,000 people.”
The court then remarked,
“Whether they are able to establish the truth of their articles will be tested in the trial.”
As arguments continued, the judge added,
“If you argue for two or three days then the other side will also argue for two or three days and then I will need some time to write the order. I will stay the order in the meantime.”
When Adani’s counsel objected, the court replied,
“Okay I will not pass any interim order, I will pass a final order.”
At this point, Grover accused the lawyers on the other side of trying to pressure the court, saying,
“overwhelm the court”.
The dispute goes back to an order passed on September 6 by Senior Civil Judge Anuj Kumar Singh of Rohini Court, which had directed removal of certain articles and asked journalists not to publish unverified or defamatory content against AEL. That order led to multiple appeals.
One appeal was filed by journalist Paranjoy Guha Thakurta, and another by journalists Ravi Nair, Abir Dasgupta, Ayaskant Das and Ayush Joshi together. The court has reserved its order on Thakurta’s appeal.
In its original defamation suit, Adani Enterprises claimed that some journalists, activists and organisations had damaged its reputation, leading to financial losses and harming India’s image globally.
ALSO READ; Delhi High Court Stays NHAI Lawyer Recruitment Over CLAT PG Scores, Judgment Reserved
AEL said that these groups were
“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”.
The company specifically mentioned articles published on paranjoy.in, adaniwatch.org and adanifiles.com.au, claiming these platforms had consistently published defamatory material about Adani Enterprises, the Adani Group, and its chairman Gautam Adani.
Advocates Vrinda Grover, Nakul Gandhi, Soutik Banerjee, Mujeeb, and Tanish Gupta appeared for the journalists in this matter.
Click Here To Read More Reports on Adani Defamation Case
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
