Calcutta High Court restrains circulation of disputed Adani video.

The Calcutta High Court has directed YouTube, X and Instagram to remove or disable access to specified URLs carrying a video titled “How Modi and Adani Stole India: The Friendship Files”, uploaded on the YouTube channel Bcubed (Breaking Boundaries with Sabeer Bhatia) and subsequently circulated on X and Instagram.

Sabeer Bhatia, an entrepreneur and co-founder of Hotmail, is the creator, owner and operator of the YouTube channel Bcubed and the X account @sabeer.

A single-judge bench of Justice Aryak Dutt also directed the platforms to preserve subscriber information, registration details, upload-time IP logs and access logs relating to the accounts and URLs identified in the suit.

The interim injunction will remain in force until January 31, 2027, or until further orders, whichever is earlier.

The defamation suit

Adani Enterprises Limited filed a defamation suit before the high court seeking damages and permanent and mandatory injunctions against Bhatia and others. 

The approximately 36-minute video was uploaded to YouTube on October 9, 2026, in collaboration with another channel, Shadow Citizens. It was also posted on Bhatia's X account. The video received 46,134 views on YouTube and approximately 40,000 views on X.

Adani Enterprises told the court that access to the original YouTube upload had been disabled in India following a government complaint under Rule 3(1)(d) of the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021. However, the video continued to circulate through re-uploads on other YouTube channels, reposts on X and Instagram reels.

The company further said that Bhatia reposted the video on X on October 22, after the original upload had been disabled.

The company, which is a part of the Adani Group, said that the video's title and narration contained false and defamatory imputations against it. These included allegations concerning the group's purported involvement in narcotics smuggling linked to terror funding and the alleged procurement of police violence and false prosecution against a farmer.

Adani Enterprises contended that the video suppressed material facts, including payments of premiums for several land projects. It also told the court that it had received enquiries from investors and others following the publication.

The company submitted that it was not seeking to prohibit constructive criticism of government policy, business concentration or its commercial activities generally. It confined its request to the disputed video, its reproductions and the defamatory imputations pleaded in the suit.

The company also argued that the right to reputation was an integral part of Article 21 of the Constitution and that YouTube, X and Instagram, as intermediaries, were required to remove or disable access to unlawful content upon a court order under Section 79(3)(b) of the Information Technology Act, 2000, read with Rule 3(1)(d) of the 2021 Rules.

Section 79(3)(b) of the IT Act removes the legal "safe harbour" protection for online intermediaries (such as social media platforms, search engines, and hosting services) if they fail to remove or disable access to unlawful content after receiving actual knowledge or a formal notification.

Court's observations

After examining the material placed on record, court held, prima facie, that the case fell within the exceptional category where an injunction before trial is to be granted if the content is prima facie malicious or palpably false.

It observed that the disputed video was not a news report or an account of proceedings but a dramatized narrative whose title expressly imputed theft and whose narration and visuals were presented as factual.

The bench further observed that the allegations concerning the Adani Group's purported involvement in narcotics smuggling linked to terror funding and the alleged procurement of police violence and false prosecution against a farmer were assertions of fact rather than expressions of opinion.

“Nothing placed before me shows any finding by any authority to that effect,” the judge said.

The bench also took note of the disabling of the original YouTube upload and the allegation that Bhatia had reposted the video after it was disabled. The alleged reposting, it said, “prima facie shows a want of good faith”.

Court noted that the video repeatedly referred to “Adani” and the “Adani Group” and mentioned businesses carried on by the plaintiff. It concluded, prima facie, that the imputations were concerning the company.

Finding that the balance of convenience favoured Adani Enterprises, the bench said that the restraint was confined to the identified video, its clips and materially identical reproductions, as well as the pleaded defamatory imputations.

It observed that online content spreads quickly through reposts and re-uploads and that the resulting reputational injury could not be adequately compensated in money.

“If the order is not passed now, its purpose will be defeated by further dissemination before the respondents can be heard,” the court observed.

Scope of the injunction

Court restrained the respondents, their agents, collaborators and persons acting under their authority or at their direction from publishing, republishing, uploading, sharing or otherwise disseminating the disputed video, its clips, excerpts, shortened versions or materially identical reproductions through any medium or platform. The restraint also covers the defamatory statements pleaded in paragraphs 15 to 18 of the petition and similar statements.

The respondents were directed to remove the specified content from accounts, channels and pages owned or controlled by them. YouTube, X and Instagram were separately directed to remove or disable access to the video at the URLs listed in Schedule A to the petition and to disable reposts, quote posts, shares and similar engagements through which it remained accessible.

For certain X entries that did not identify specific posts, the company was directed to furnish the relevant URLs, after which the platform directions would apply.

The platforms must preserve subscriber information, registration details, upload-time IP logs and access logs relating to the identified accounts and URLs. They must also disclose, in a sealed cover, basic subscriber information for accounts whose holders cannot be identified from Schedule A, through an affidavit filed within two weeks of communication of the order.

Additionally, the platforms have been directed not to run or serve advertisements on, or share revenue concerning, the specified URLs or the disputed video containing the pleaded defamatory statements. Records of advertising revenue generated from the content must be preserved until further orders.

Court directed YouTube, X and Instagram to inform Adani Enterprises of the identity of unidentified persons so that the company could amend its plaint and serve the relevant documents. It also permitted the company to place details of any further uploads, re-uploads or reposts on record through a supplementary affidavit and seek appropriate directions.

The respondents have been directed to file their affidavits-in-opposition within four weeks from the date of service, followed by the plaintiff's affidavit-in-reply within two weeks thereafter.

The application has been directed to be listed before the Regular Bench in the Monthly List of January 2027 under the heading “Adjourned Motion”.

Case Title: Adani Enterprises Limited v. Sabeer Bhatia & Ors.

Order Date: October 26, 2026

Bench: Justice Aryak Dutt

Tags: