Reputation vs. Free Speech: Court Restrains Unverified Reports Targeting Adani Enterprises

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 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 matter has been listed for October 9, 2025.

The journalists include: Paranjoy Guha Thakurta, Ravi Nair, Abir Dasgupta, Ayaskant Das, and Ayush Joshi, along with the websites pranjoy.in, adaniwatch.org, and adanifiles.com.au.

Senior Advocate Jagdeep Sharma, appearing along with a battery of lawyers including Vijay Aggarwal, argued that the defendants; including websites pranjoy.in, adaniwatch.org, and adanifiles.com.au, had published a series of articles and reports portraying Adani as a crony capitalist, accusing it of corrupt practices and highlighting negative international campaigns against its projects in Australia, Israel, Africa, and Bangladesh.

The plaint specifically referred to reliance on the Hindenburg Research report, which predicted a 90% fall in Adani stock value, and argued that its repetition by defendants had caused financial harm and eroded investor trust. The plaintiff also claimed that the publications were part of a “nefarious design aligned with anti-India interests” aimed at derailing projects crucial to India’s infrastructure and energy security.

Through an interim injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC, Adani sought orders restraining the defendants from publishing or circulating the alleged defamatory content, using the company’s name without consent, or making further unverified statements. The company also sought directions for intermediaries to take down defamatory material within 36 hours in line with the IT (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021.

While acknowledging the constitutional importance of free speech under Article 19(1)(a), the Court underscored that the right to reputation is part of Article 21 and deserves equal protection.

Referring to precedents including Shashi Tharoor v. Arnab Goswami and Swami Ramdev v. Juggernaut Books, the court noted that unchecked “trial by media” can cause irreparable harm to reputation and affect due administration of justice.

The Court 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.

In its interim directions, the Court:

1. Restrained defendants (Nos. 1 to 10, including John Doe parties) from publishing or distributing unverified, unsubstantiated, and ex-facie defamatory content about Adani.

2. Ordered the defendants to expunge defamatory material from their websites and social media posts within five days, or take them down if correction was not feasible.

3. Directed intermediaries, once notified with links and details, to disable access within 36 hours while preserving records for 180 days as per IT Rules.

4. Clarified that fair, accurate, and verified reporting on investigations or court proceedings would not be curtailed by this order.

The Court also allowed Adani to continue submitting new links of defamatory content to intermediaries for takedown until further orders.

Significantly, the Court emphasized that the interim injunction was not a blanket restraint on reporting. Instead, it was aimed only at unverified and defamatory content that prima facie harmed the plaintiff’s reputation.

The matter will now return for further hearing on October 9, 2025, when the defendants are expected to file their responses.