Adani Defamation Case: Delhi Court Transfers Paranjoy, Newslaundry’s Plea to Same Judge Who Lifted Earlier Restraint
Delhi Court to hear Paranjoy Guha Thakurta and Newslaundry’s plea challenging gag order on Adani Enterprises on September 23
Court orders that the matter be listed on September 23 at 10 am
Digital news platform Newslaundry on Monday moved a Delhi Court challenging a gag order restraining it from publishing allegedly defamatory content against businessman Gautam Adani’s Adani Enterprises Limited (AEL).
The matter came up before District Judge Sunil Chaudhary of Rohini District Court who directed that the case be listed before District Judge Ashish Aggarwal.
Judge Aggarwal had last week lifted a similar gag order in an appeal filed by journalists in the same matter.
Though counsel for Adani objected to the matter being heard by the same judge, Judge Chaudhary overruled the objection, stating: “Let matter be heard by the same judge. This is being done to avoid any contradictory view by this court. It is appropriate if the case is heard by the same judge.”
The Court ordered that the matter be listed on Tuesday (September 23) at 10 am. before Judge Aggarwal.
Notably, on September 18, the Court had reserved its order on the plea filed by senior journalist Paranjoy Guha Thakurta challenging a civil court’s injunction that barred him from publishing articles about the Adani Group and its companies. However, the Appeal has now been transferred to Judge Aggarwal and will be heard afresh.
Senior Advocate Trideep Pais appeared for Guha. Pais had attacked the impugned order as “overbroad and unreasoned,” stressing that it not only prohibited publication against Adani Enterprises but also extended to group companies not even party to the suit. He had argued that the order effectively allows Adani to act as “judge in its own case,” since it leaves the determination of what is defamatory to the plaintiff.
“The injunction order doesn’t specify which words or passages are defamatory. It simply records submissions of the plaintiff as if they were findings. Articles from 2017 and even one-year-old reports have been clubbed together, and intermediaries have been directed to remove any content that the plaintiff claims is defamatory,” Pais had told the court. He had submitted that the civil court judge failed to apply the test for defamation and that an injunction cannot be granted without reasoned findings.
Countering the appeal, Senior Advocate Anurag Ahluwalia for Adani enterprises had argued that Guha’s articles were consistently defamatory, creating an impression that Adani was manipulating the government and damaging its market reputation. Reading excerpts, he had pointed to references comparing Adani to Elon Musk and alleging undue influence on government policies.
“This is not fair journalism. These repeated publications are aimed at tarnishing reputation. There has to be a stop to this kind of reporting, which affects investors and the market,” Ahluwalia had submitted.
Senior Advocate Vijay Aggarwal, also representing Adani, had supported the injunction, arguing that defamatory material published online had nationwide jurisdiction and needed judicial restraint.
The Court had questioned the basis of the ex parte injunction and asked whether the impugned order had provided any reasoning for concluding the articles were defamatory. “Until a declaration is made that material is defamatory, how can such a sweeping injunction be justified?” the judge had remarked.
Notably, on September 6, the order was passed by SCJ-cum-RC Anuj Kumar Singh of Rohini Courts in a fresh civil suit filed by AEL alleging that targeted defamatory campaigns by reporters, activists, and certain organizations had severely damaged the Group’s global reputation, hindered its projects, and shaken investor confidence. The Court had registered the suit, issued summons to the defendants, and directed service through ordinary process, registered post, electronic means including WhatsApp and email, as well as dasti service.
The Court had held that Adani had demonstrated a prima facie case, with balance of convenience in its favour, since continued circulation of unverified articles could further tarnish its reputation and cause irreversible loss to investors and stakeholders.