Introduction
In a significant development in India’s ongoing debate over corporate reputation, freedom of the press, and responsible journalism, a Delhi Court has restrained several journalists and websites from publishing or circulating alleged defamatory and unverified reports against the Adani Group. The interim injunction was passed by Special Civil Judge Anuj Kumar Singh of the Rohini Courts on September 6, 2025, in a defamation suit filed by Adani Enterprises Limited.
The case has garnered attention due to the involvement of prominent investigative journalists such as Paranjoy Guha Thakurta and the websites pranjoy.in, adaniwatch.org, and adanifiles.com.au, all of which have been known for their critical coverage of the Adani conglomerate. The ruling brings into sharp focus the balance between corporate reputation and press freedom, especially in the context of allegations of corporate wrongdoing.
Background of the Case
The Adani Group, one of India’s largest multinational conglomerates with interests in infrastructure, energy, logistics, and ports, has faced frequent criticism and allegations of improper business practices. Investigative journalists have reported on issues ranging from alleged regulatory violations to environmental concerns.
In its civil suit, Adani Enterprises argued that certain journalists and platforms were publishing baseless, agenda-driven content aimed at tarnishing the reputation of the company and its chairman, Gautam Adani. It alleged that such reporting was malicious, unverified, and had a global impact—causing investor panic, harming market value, and undermining confidence in the group’s operations.
The suit also emphasized the wide circulation of these reports, claiming that defamatory content had been shared not only on the websites in question but also across social media platforms, other websites, and by several unidentified persons (“John Doe” defendants).
Court’s Observations
Judge Anuj Kumar Singh observed that there was a prima facie case in favor of the Adani Group. The Court stated that the balance of convenience lay with the plaintiff, as continued dissemination of defamatory reports could cause irreparable harm to its reputation and result in a media trial.
The Court noted:
- The reports were unverified and unsubstantiated.
- Circulation of such material risked further damaging Adani’s public image and market standing.
- If unchecked, these publications could lead to incalculable harm to the company’s reputation.
Accordingly, the Court passed an ex-parte ad-interim injunction, restraining the journalists and websites from publishing or circulating defamatory content against the Adani Group until the next hearing.
Directions Issued by the Court
The Court went beyond granting a blanket restraint order and issued specific directions:
- Removal of Defamatory Content: The defendants were directed to expunge defamatory material from their articles, social media posts, and tweets. If complete removal was not feasible, the content was to be deleted within five days.
- Compliance with IT Rules, 2021: The Court reminded the defendants of Rule 3 of the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, which imposes a duty of due diligence on intermediaries in hosting or storing content.
- 36-Hour Takedown Rule: Specifically, the Court highlighted Rule 3(1)(d) of the IT Rules, which requires intermediaries to disable access to unlawful content within 36 hours of receiving a court order or government notice.
These directions ensure that the responsibility for removal not only lies with the individual journalists and platforms but also with intermediaries hosting such content.
Adani Group’s Allegations
The Adani Group’s complaint stressed that the publications in question were not isolated incidents but part of a coordinated attempt to malign the company’s global image. The allegations included:
- Running agenda-driven websites repeatedly targeting the company.
- Publishing baseless accusations without evidence.
- Causing significant financial harm by creating panic among investors.
- Maliciously attacking Adani’s operations and damaging investor confidence.
The suit claimed that such reporting led to loss of funds in the stock market and hampered the conglomerate’s ability to function smoothly in international markets.
Legal Representation
Adani Enterprises was represented by a strong legal team led by Senior Advocate Jagdeep Sharma, along with Advocates Naman Joshi, Vijay Aggarwal, Guneet Sidhu, Verdaan Jain, Muskan Aggarwal, and Deepak Aggarwal. Their submissions highlighted the urgent need for relief to prevent further damage to Adani’s reputation and protect investor confidence.
Broader Legal and Social Implications
The ruling in favor of Adani Enterprises has wider implications beyond this case.
1. Freedom of the Press vs. Corporate Reputation
This case exemplifies the perennial conflict between the right to free speech and the right to reputation. While journalists argue for freedom to investigate and publish, corporations assert their right to protect against defamation and misinformation. Courts are increasingly tasked with balancing these competing rights.
2. Defamation in the Digital Age
With the rise of social media and digital platforms, defamatory content spreads rapidly and widely. The Court’s emphasis on IT Rules, 2021 reflects the judiciary’s recognition of the challenges posed by online defamation and the need for swift takedowns.
3. Precedent for Corporate Defamation Cases
The interim injunction could set a precedent for future corporate defamation suits. Other companies facing negative coverage may rely on similar legal strategies to seek gag orders against journalists and websites.
4. Impact on Investigative Journalism
Critics argue that such injunctions risk creating a chilling effect on investigative journalism, as reporters may hesitate to publish critical stories for fear of legal repercussions.
Conclusion
The Adani defamation case highlights the delicate balance between safeguarding corporate reputation and preserving press freedom. The Delhi Court’s interim order provides immediate relief to the Adani Group but raises larger questions about the role of the judiciary in regulating content critical of powerful corporations.
As the matter progresses, the Court will eventually have to decide whether the contested reports amount to fair journalistic scrutiny or malicious defamation. The outcome will shape not only the Adani Group’s reputation but also the future of defamation law in India’s digital landscape.
Also Read
