NEW DELHI: A Delhi court has overturned an earlier order that directed four journalists to remove alleged defamatory content against Adani Enterprises Limited (AEL), holding that such a move without hearing them was “sweeping” and effectively amounted to deciding the case without trial.
In its September 18 ruling, made public on Friday, the district court stayed the September 6 order of a civil judge, which had asked 10 defendants—including journalists Ravi Nair, Abir Dasgupta, Ayaskanta Das, and Ayush Joshi—to delete articles and social media posts critical of AEL.
District Judge Ashish Aggarwal said the lower court had issued “extensive directions” without giving the journalists an opportunity to present their case. “Until it is at least prima facie established that the articles are incorrect, defamatory, or unverified, they cannot be removed from the public domain, as this would violate Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution and seriously undermine freedom of speech and expression,” the order stated.
The judge also flagged concerns that the earlier ruling gave AEL undue liberty to seek removal of future critical articles without prior judicial scrutiny. Such directions, he said, exposed authors to contempt proceedings without first establishing whether their statements were defamatory. This, he warned, placed journalists under a “constant perilous state” and risked a chilling effect on critical reporting.
Judge Aggarwal further noted that the civil judge’s order overlooked provisions of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC), particularly the requirement to decide ex parte injunction applications within 30 days. By fixing the matter for October 9—beyond that period—the trial court had “disempowered itself” from meeting this requirement.
Calling the September 6 order “not sustainable,” the district court set it aside with respect to the four appellants, while clarifying that it had not ruled on the merits of the defamation allegations. It directed the senior civil judge to pass fresh orders after hearing both the journalists and AEL.
“The court of the senior civil judge ought to have granted an opportunity of hearing to the defendants before declaring their statements to be irresponsible and defamatory,” the order said, emphasizing that removal of published articles by an interim order risked irreversible harm if they were later found not defamatory.
The appeal was allowed, and all contentions remain open for determination by the lower court.
Defendants in the case include Paranjoy Guha Thakurta, the four journalists, Bob Brown Foundation, Dreamscape Network International Pvt Ltd, Getup Ltd, Domain Directors Pvt Ltd (trading as Instra), and unnamed parties.
