Delhi Court Stays Ex-Parte Order, Grants Relief to Journalists in Adani Case

The Saket District Court in Delhi has overturned a lower court’s order that had directed the removal of reports and posts related to Adani Enterprises Limited.

The ex parte order restraining four journalists from reporting on Adani Enterprises Limited (AEL) was stayed by a Delhi court on Thursday. Another court, meanwhile, reserved its order on a related appeal filed by journalist Paranjoy Guha Thakurta.

On September 6, the Rohini court issued an ex parte interim order directing several journalists and activists to take down articles and social media posts allegedly defaming Adani Enterprises Limited (AEL) and to refrain from publishing such content until the next hearing.

Court hears Thakurta’s plea

Appearing for journalist Paranjoy Guha Thakurta on Thursday, senior advocate Trideep Pais questioned how the Union government could intervene when it was not a party to the case. This came after the Union I\&B Ministry, on September 16, issued notices to two media houses and several YouTube channels in connection with the defamation case.

“The urgency is that the Central government has directed intermediaries to remove all the materials,” Pais submitted. “They claim my client’s reporting harms India’s energy interests, trying to equate themselves with the nation. The court did not explain how the material is defamatory or why denying an injunction would cause irreparable loss. The order itself notes that AEL has not been found guilty of anything—but that is not the test of defamation,” he argued.

The matter was being heard by District Judge Sunil Chaudhary of the Rohini Court.

Adani Counsel Asked to Prove Stock Hit

The court questioned Adani’s counsel on the Rohini Court’s jurisdiction and the basis for defamation claims in a case involving journalist Paranjoy Guha Thakurta. The court asked counsel to identify specific defamatory lines and demonstrate how the articles harmed Adani’s shares. While Adani’s lawyers argued that repeated reports tarnished the company and linked the government to alleged favoritism, the court appeared skeptical, noting that people can say anything. After hearing both sides, the court reserved its order. Earlier, on September 17, Thakurta’s plea for an urgent hearing was rejected, with the judge remarking that a short delay in publication was not critical.

Fresh Stay Issued by Second Court

Journalists Ravi Nair, Abir Dasgupta, Ayaskant Das, and Ayush Joshi separately challenged the September 6 order, with District Judge Ashish Aggarwal of the Rohini Court hearing the case.

Advocate Vrinda Grover, representing the defendants, argued that the September 6 order did not reflect the court’s own reasoning but was merely a reproduction of the plaintiff’s claims and pleadings.

While dictating the order, Judge Ashish Aggarwal observed, “In my view, the senior civil judge should have formed an independent opinion on the content. The plaintiff had questioned articles and posts spanning 2024–2025, yet the court did not consider it necessary to grant the defendants an opportunity to be heard.”

He added, “Such an opportunity should have been given before passing the order.”

Setting aside the September 6 directive, the judge concluded, “The defendants were not heard. Without that, the order cannot be sustained.”

Journalists’ Unions Voice Concern, Disappointment

Journalist bodies have voiced concern and disappointment over both the ex parte order of September 6 and the subsequent I&B Ministry notice directing media houses and YouTube channels to remove content mentioning the Adani Group.

Significantly, those who received the ministry’s notice on September 16 were not parties to the original defamation case in which the interim order was issued.

In a statement dated September 16, Digipub said, “This makes it alarming that the ministry is going to such lengths to enforce a civil court’s order against journalists and publications who were not even parties to the case.”

Digipub further noted that while the court’s order did not impose a blanket ban—restricting only the original defendants from publishing “unverified, unsubstantiated, and clearly defamatory reports” until the next hearing—the ministry issued blanket removal orders. It questioned whether the Digital Secretary had the authority to demand removal of an entire list of links within 36 hours and whether this action carried the approval of the Minister and the Ministry.

“The process of appeal was absent, and there was no clarity on how the Deputy Secretary determined that the links were defamatory—or if such a determination was made at all,” the statement added.

Press Club of India Condemns Adani Defamation Order as Judicial Overreach

Calling the order an act of egregious judicial overreach, the Press Club of India (PCI) said the court has effectively handed corporate entities the power to impose unrestricted censorship.

“The ex parte order in the civil suit filed by Adani Enterprises Limited against five journalists and other John Doe defendants allows its restrictions to be extended to anyone ‘publishing, distributing, or circulating unverified, unsubstantiated, and ex-facie defamatory reports.’ This is perhaps the largest and a textbook example of using SLAPP (Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation) to gag the free press in India. The order is unprecedented in its scale and scope and holds immense potential for misuse to silence journalists,” PCI said.

Highlighting a troubling trend, the body added that the growing use of ex parte orders against journalists and media houses—targeting articles deemed “defamatory or inconvenient to those in power”—represents a dangerous sprint toward unmitigated censorship.

Enables Private Groups to Suppress Press

Expressing concern over the “blanket powers being given to a private entity” along with ministerial action, the Editors Guild of India (EGI) described the move as a step toward censorship.

“They risk chilling legitimate reporting, commentary, and satire, and undermine the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression,” the statement said. “This extension of executive power effectively allows a private corporation to decide what constitutes defamatory content about their affairs, including the authority to order content takedowns.”

The Guild urged the government to exercise restraint and refrain from acting as an enforcement arm for private litigants in civil disputes.

Journalist bodies also emphasized the critical role of a free media in sustaining democracy. “A free and fearless press is indispensable to democracy. Any system that allows private interests to unilaterally silence critical or uncomfortable voices poses a serious risk to the public’s right to know,” the EGI said.

Echoing this, the Press Club of India noted that a free press is essential for holding those in power accountable and ensuring the public’s right to information.

Also Read: Adani Green Share Price Dives Alongside Other 'Adani Group' Stocks