Delhi court refused interim relief to Newslaundry in its appeal against a gag order restraining defamatory content on Adani Enterprises. Judge said Newslaundry is not an aggrieved party; matter listed for October 15.
New Delhi: A Delhi court on Wednesday refused to grant interim relief to digital news platform Newslaundry in its appeal against a gag order issued by a civil court that had restrained several people and organisations from publishing defamatory content against businessman Gautam Adani’s company, Adani Enterprises Limited (AEL).
District Judge Sunil Chaudhary observed that Newslaundry could not be considered an aggrieved party since it was not named as a defendant in the defamation suit filed by Adani before the civil court.
The judge further said that even if intermediaries hosting the news platform’s content were directed to take down the videos due to the John Doe order (an order against unknown defendants), Newslaundry would still have the option to challenge such removal separately.
The Court remarked:
“Directions intermediaries ko hai. Agar intermediary hata de to uske baad aapke paas remedy hai (Directions have been issued to intermediaries. If an intermediary removes the videos, then you have the remedy).”
With this, the court declined to pass any interim direction in favour of Newslaundry and instead asked Adani Enterprises to file its reply to the appeal. The case will next be heard on October 15.
Background
The gag order in question was issued earlier on September 6 by Senior Civil Judge Anuj Kumar Singh at Rohini Court. He directed that allegedly defamatory content against AEL should be removed and also restrained journalists from publishing unverified and defamatory material about the company.
Adani Enterprises had filed the defamation suit claiming that certain journalists, activists, and organisations had harmed its reputation, caused massive losses to its brand image, and even damaged India’s credibility as a country.
The company argued that these individuals 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 also pointed to critical content published on websites like paranjoy.in, adaniwatch.org and adanifiles.com.au, claiming these platforms repeatedly carried defamatory articles about the company, the Adani Group, and its founder Gautam Adani.
After hearing the case, the civil court concluded that AEL had made out a prima facie case and granted an interim injunction not only against the five named journalists but also against unknown parties through a John Doe order.
This led Newslaundry, along with journalist Paranjoy Guha Thakurta and others, to challenge the gag order before the district court.
On September 18, District Judge Ashish Aggarwal allowed the appeal filed by journalists Ravi Nair, Abir Dasgupta, Ayaskant Das, and Ayush Joshi, and lifted the order against them.
However, Newslaundry’s and Thakurta’s appeals came before District Judge Sunil Chaudhary. Judge Chaudhary, after noting Judge Aggarwal’s previous order, initially said that it would be appropriate for Judge Aggarwal to hear these matters.
The case was then placed before the Principal District and Sessions Judge for assignment. But the Principal District and Sessions Judge sent it back to Judge Chaudhary, directing him to hear the appeals.
Newslaundry’s appeal
When Newslaundry’s appeal was argued, Judge Chaudhary questioned how the platform was directly affected by the civil court order.
He asked:
“Aap kaun hain? Aapne kya videos ya articles daal rakhe hain? Aap party nahi hain civil court k saamne. Jo bhi aapke videos hain usko koi zika plaint me?”
Newslaundry’s counsel submitted that the gag order was passed in the form of a John Doe order, which can extend to unknown parties and not just those specifically named in the defamation suit.
The lawyer argued:
“Order ne intermediary ko power di hai..John Doe order se (Order has given power to the intermediary through John Doe parties).”
The judge then asked:
“Youtube ne kahin bola hai ki inhone (Adani) applied for take down of the video? (Did the YouTube say that Adani applied for the take down of the video) “
The counsel responded:
“Youtube ne bola hai ki court order ki compliance me videos hatao (YouTube said videos should be removed in compliance of court orders).”
The Court then remarked:
“Aap youtube se puchho ki unko kisne approach kiya hai (You ask the YouTube who approached them).”
To this, Newslaundry’s lawyer replied:
“Tab tak ham to contempt me aa jaaenge (By then, we would be in contempt).”
The Court clarified further:
“Court ne direction di hai that Adani Enterprises can approach YouTube for take-down of content. Main ye puchh raha hu ki kya inhone Youtube ko likha hai? Inko (Adani) ko reply ka mauka hai na? (Court has said that Adani can approach Youtube for take-down of content. I am asking if they (Adani) have written to the YouTube? They (Adani) have the right to file a reply no?).”
After hearing the arguments, Judge Chaudhary refused to grant interim relief to Newslaundry and asked Adani Enterprises to file its response.
Paranjoy Thakurta’s appeal
Meanwhile, in Paranjoy Thakurta’s appeal, Senior Advocate Jagdeep Sharma representing Adani argued that the order passed by Judge Ashish Aggarwal lifting the gag order against four journalists would not apply to this case. Sharma stated:
“I am saying the order passed by Judge Aggarwal setting aside the direction qua four journalists is not binding on this court.”
He also assured the court that Adani Enterprises would not take coercive action until the application for interim relief before the Senior Civil Judge was decided. Sharma said:
“We are saying that till the disposal of the interim relief application before the Senior Civil Judge we will not take any action in pursuance of the impugned order. We will not file any contempt.”
Advocate Apar Gupta, appearing for Thakurta, argued that the articles forming the basis of the defamation case were co-authored with other defendants.
ALSO READ: Deleting Savarkar speech video is Rahul Gandhi’s personal liberty, rules Pune Court
He told the court:
“Wo articles hain is suit me wo co-authored hain. Wo maine baaki defendants ke sath mil ke likhe hain. Kuch articles pehle hi take down ho gaye hain. Ispe puri sunwai ho chuki hai. Principal District Judge sahab ne ye bhi likh rakha hai. Mere articles pehle hi take down ho gaye hain. Agar ye court mujhe sunti hai aur order paas karti hai to main apne articles restore karwa paaunga.”
However, Judge Chaudhary made it clear that his court was not bound by Judge Aggarwal’s previous order. He said:
“Ye court us court ke order (setting aside ex parte order against 4 journalists) se bound nahi hai.”
The court has reserved its order on Thakurta’s plea for interim relief.
Click Here To Read More Reports on Adani Defamation Case
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
