Government enforces court ruling against content deemed defamatory towards Adani Enterprises and its reputation.
The Ministry of Information and Broadcasting has mandated the removal of 138 YouTube videos and 83 Instagram posts that allegedly contain defamatory content about Gautam Adani’s Adani Enterprises. This directive follows a Delhi court order issued on September 6, which temporarily restrained certain journalists and websites from disseminating material that could harm the reputation of the company.
The notice was sent to 12 news outlets and independent journalists, including prominent platforms such as Newslaundry, The Wire, and HW News. Notable journalists who received the takedown request include Paranjoy Guha Thakurta, Ajit Anjum, and Ravish Kumar, alongside satirist Akash Banerjee and content creator Dhruv Rathee.
Copies of the notice have also been forwarded to Meta and Google, the parent companies of Instagram and YouTube, respectively, indicating the broad scope of enforcement. The materials in question encompass not only investigative reports but also satirical videos and incidental mentions related to the Adani Group.
The legal proceedings originated from a defamation lawsuit filed by Adani Enterprises, which claimed that the actions of various journalists, activists, and organizations had adversely affected its reputation, leading to significant financial losses for its stakeholders. The order from Special Civil Judge Anuj Kumar Singh of the Rohini Courts was an ex parte injunction, meaning it was issued without a hearing of the defendants’ side.
According to reports, the court’s directive instructed the involved parties to remove the specified content from their articles and social media platforms within five days. Should the removal of such content not be feasible, the defendants were required to expunge it entirely. This legal framework emphasizes the serious implications of the allegations against the journalists and the companies involved.
It is noteworthy that, aside from Guha Thakurta, none of the other individuals and outlets who received the ministry’s notice were parties to the original court proceedings. The court clarified that its ruling was not intended to impose a blanket ban on “fair, verified and substantiated” reporting. Rather, it aimed to protect the interests of Adani Enterprises by restricting material deemed harmful to its image.
The ongoing situation raises questions about freedom of the press and the balance between protecting corporate reputations and ensuring journalistic integrity. As discussions continue, the implications of this case may resonate throughout the media landscape, particularly concerning how content regarding significant business figures is reported and disseminated.
