Adani Defamation Case: Delhi Court Reserves Verdict on Paranjoy Guha Thakurta’s Plea
Thakurta has challenged an ex parte injunction order that restrained him from publishing alleged defamatory content against Gautam Adani and Adani Enterprises Limited
A Delhi Court on Thursday 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.
The matter was heard by District Judge Sunil Chaudhary of Rohini Courts, where the court also noted that another appeal by co-defendant journalists had been filed but not yet listed.
Senior Advocate Trideep Pais appeared for Guha, while Senior Advocates Anurag Ahluwalia, Jagdeep Sharma and Vijay Aggarwal represented Adani Enterprises.
Pais 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 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 told the court. He 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 Ahluwalia 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 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 submitted.
Aggarwal, also representing Adani, supported the injunction, arguing that defamatory material published online had nationwide jurisdiction and needed judicial restraint.
The Court 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 remarked.
After hearing both sides at length, the Court reserved its order on Guha’s appeal.
Senior Advocate Trideep Pais, appearing for Thakurta had assailed the injunction order as “over-broad” and “without reasoning,” contending that it did not specify what content was defamatory or why it merited a gag order. “On this basis an ex parte injunction was given, and it also permitted the plaintiff to directly approach intermediaries to seek takedown of material,” Pais had submitted.
The order in question was passed on September 6 in a suit filed by Adani Enterprises Limited.
During the course of arguments, Senior Advocate Anurag Ahluwalia appearing for the Adani Enterprises had contended that the articles cited in the plaint spanned from 2017 till August 2025, and there was “nothing urgent” about the matter. “It is claimed that the context is defamatory, but it is not shown what is defamatory. Articles and websites are shown, but no finding has been given on what part is false or harmful,” Pais had argued.
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.
Case Title: Paranjoy Guha Thakurta v. Adani Enterprises Ltd.
Hearing Date: September 18, 2025
Bench: District Judge Sunil Chaudhary