DUJ hails court relief for journalists
New Delhi: The Delhi Union of Journalists (DUJ) has welcomed the relief granted to four journalists in a defamation case filed by Adani Enterprises Limited (AEL), praising the decision as a positive step for press freedom.
The journalists—Ravi Nair, Abir Dasgupta, Ayaskanta Das, and Ayush Joshi—had been restrained by an ex parte order from publishing or circulating allegedly defamatory content about AEL.
On September 18, 2025, District Judge Ashish Aggarwal of the Rohini Courts set aside the September 6 order issued by Senior Civil Judge Anuj Kumar Singh. The original order had allowed AEL to approach internet intermediaries directly for the removal of URLs, videos, posts, and articles it deemed defamatory.
The court’s ruling emphasised that the gag order was unsustainable as it had been passed without granting the affected journalists a chance to be heard, violating principles of natural justice. Judge Aggarwal noted that many articles and posts questioned by AEL had been in the public domain for an extended period, and the civil court should have heard the defendants before declaring content prima facie defamatory and ordering removal.
He cautioned that such removal directions could cause irreversible consequences. If the senior civil judge later finds in the trial that the articles are not defamatory, restoring removed content would be impossible, depriving the public of access to information.
Further, the judge criticised the delegation of excessive authority to AEL and internet intermediaries to decide what content to remove without judicial oversight. The order’s sweeping scope included not only specified journalists but also “John Doe” defendants, encompassing unnamed persons and future publications, a provision the court found legally tenuous.
Separately, journalist Paranjoy Guha Thakurta, also restrained by the same September 6 order, has challenged the injunction before District Judge Sunil Chaudhary. His appeal was heard on September 18 and the court has reserved its verdict, meaning the order remains operative against him for now.
Following the initial order, the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting issued notices to internet platforms requesting removal of 138 YouTube videos and 83 Instagram posts related to the Adani conglomerate. Content creators affected include independent journalists such as Ravish Kumar, Ajit Anjum, Dhruv Rathee, Akash Banerjee, Deepak Sharma, Kunal Kamra, and digital news platforms including The Wire and Newslaundry.
Ex parte injunctions, which are issued without hearing the opposing side, are typically reserved for urgent situations. However, legal experts say any such order restricting speech must meet strict criteria and protect defendants’ right to be heard. Indian courts adhere to Supreme Court guidelines, such as the “Bonnard v Perryman” principle, which holds that prior restraint is an extreme remedy to be granted only when the plaintiff is clearly prima facie entitled to protection and no alternative remedies suffice.
This case highlights ongoing tensions between protecting powerful corporate reputations and upholding the constitutional guarantee of free speech and press freedom in India. The ruling on Paranjoy Guha Thakurta’s separate appeal and future trial proceedings will be closely watched as indicators of how courts balance these competing interests.
– global bihari bureau
