Delhi Court Strikes Down Gag Order on Journalists in Adani Defamation Case

Speedy Summary

• A Delhi court set aside a prior injunction restricting four journalists from publishing alleged defamatory content about Adani Enterprises Limited (AEL).
• District Judge ashish Aggarwal deemed the earlier September 6, 2025 ex parte injunction “unsustainable,” as the journalists were not given an opportunity to present their case.
• The disputed injunction had required intermediaries like Meta and Google to remove allegedly defamatory content and allowed AEL to identify additional material for takedown within 36 hours.
• AEL claimed that “coordinated defamatory” articles aimed to tarnish its reputation and disrupt global operations; its advocates argued the material was part of a malicious campaign.
• Journalists, through advocate Vrinda Grover, argued procedural flaws in the September 6 ruling, including lack of urgency and bypassing stricter standards by filing a declaration suit rather of a defamation suit.
• the court clarified that it would not judge whether the articles were truthful or defamatory at this stage; this determination belongs in trial proceedings.
• The Ministry of Information & Broadcasting previously acted on the September 6 order, issuing takedown notices to news outlets like Newslaundry, The Wire, HW News, Ravish Kumar, Dhruv Rathee, others-and Meta/Google as intermediaries.
• Editors Guild criticized these measures as threats against journalistic freedom.

Indian opinion Analysis

This case raises critical questions regarding balancing corporate reputation with freedom of press in India.While companies have legitimate concerns over potential damage from unverified reporting affecting their global operations, judicial oversight is essential for upholding fair legal processes. The earlier ex parte injunction highlighted procedural lapses such as denial of hearing rights-a principle basic to due process.

Media groups’ concerns over censorship potentially undermining free speech are valid but must be evaluated within India’s legal framework governing defamation and online accountability under IT rules. For businesses facing reputational attacks via digital platforms or coordinated campaigns-credible evidence must back claims during trial stages instead of broad preemptive orders for content removal.

This incident reflects India’s need for clear principles ensuring mutual respect: protecting individual rights while enabling investigative journalism critical for national discourse. As this case progresses through trials once remanded back into civil court jurisdiction-it may define boundaries between clarity/malicious targeting better.

Read More