Guild warns that censorship risks legitimate reporting and undermines freedom of speech rights.
The Editors Guild of India expressed deep concern following a Delhi court’s decision to temporarily restrain journalists from publishing content deemed defamatory towards Adani Enterprises. This development, coupled with the Centre’s directive to remove numerous YouTube links and Instagram posts about the company, has raised alarms about potential censorship in the media landscape.
On September 6, the Rohini Courts, led by Special Civil Judge Anuj Kumar Singh, issued an ex parte injunction against several journalists, including Paranjoy Guha Thakurta, Ravi Nair, Abir Dasgupta, Ayaskant Das, and Ayush Joshi. The injunction also extended to websites such as paranjoy.in, adaniwatch.org, and adanifiles.com.au, effectively restricting them from publishing material that could be construed as damaging to Gautam Adani’s business interests.
While the court clarified that it was not imposing a blanket ban on fair and verified reporting, the subsequent actions taken by the Union Ministry of Information and Broadcasting illustrated a significant escalation. Just ten days later, on September 16, the Ministry invoked the court’s ruling to order twelve news outlets and independent journalists to eliminate allegedly defamatory content related to the Adani Group. This directive included the removal of 138 YouTube videos and 83 Instagram posts, impacting various media organizations and content creators.
Among those receiving removal notices were well-known news outlets such as Newslaundry, The Wire, and HW News, as well as prominent journalists and satirists like Ajit Anjum, Ravish Kumar, Akash Banerjee, and Dhruv Rathee. Notably, most recipients of the Ministry’s notice were not directly involved in the court proceedings, raising questions about the fairness and scope of the government’s actions.
In light of these developments, the Editors Guild issued a statement expressing its alarm over the powers granted to a corporate entity, which appeared to be bolstered by the government’s actions. The Guild characterized these measures as a step toward censorship that could deter legitimate reporting, commentary, and satire, fundamentally undermining the right to freedom of speech and expression.
Moreover, the Guild highlighted the troubling nature of the Centre’s directive, which effectively allowed a private corporation to dictate what constitutes defamatory content regarding its operations. This scenario raises critical issues about the balance of power between the state, corporate interests, and the press.
The Editors Guild urged the judiciary to ensure that defamation claims are handled through established legal processes rather than through unilateral injunctions that may impose prior restraint on free expression. This call for due process emphasizes the necessity for a fair legal framework that protects both the rights of individuals and the integrity of journalistic practices.
The court’s order followed a defamation suit filed by Adani Enterprises, which contended that the actions of journalists, activists, and organizations had tarnished its reputation and resulted in significant financial losses for its stakeholders. The court’s instructions required the defendants to remove the contested material from their publications and social media platforms within a specified timeframe.
As this situation unfolds, the ramifications for media freedom and the role of the judiciary in safeguarding democratic rights remain critical points of discussion in India.
