Delhi court quashes ex-parte gag order against journalists, upholding press freedom in Adani Group defamation case.
Published Sep 18, 2025 | 6:04 PM ⚊ Updated Sep 18, 2025 | 6:04 PM
Billionaire industrialist Gautam Adani (Supplied)
Synopsis: A Delhi Court overturned an ex-parte gag order, in part, from 6 September, restraining alleged defamatory publications about the Adani Group. District Judge Ashish Aggarwal ruled the lower court erred by not hearing four journalists before ordering article removals. The decision, hailed as a press freedom victory, highlighted the lack of urgency and reasoning in the original injunction.
A Delhi Court has overturned an ex-parte gag order issued by a lower court on 6 September, which restricted ‘defamatory’ publications about the Adani Group.
District Judge Ashish Aggarwal at Rohini Court ruled on an appeal by four journalists—Ravi Nair, Abir Dasgupta, Ayaskant Das, and Ayush Joshi, reported Live Law. The gag order against others who haven’t challenged it continues.
The judge noted that the articles had been publicly available for some time, and the civil judge should have heard the journalists before ordering their removal.
“While articles and posts spanning a substantial period were questioned by plaintiff through the suit, the court didn’t deem it fit to grant opportunity of hearing to defendants before passing impugned order. In my opinion the civil judge ought to have granted that opportunity before passing an order which had impact of prima facie declaring articles are defamatory and even directing their removal,” the judge stated.
He added, “The effect would be in the event of the court of senior civil judge subsequently finding that the articles are not defamatory, after defendants put forth their defence, it is not feasible that articles which have been removed would then be restored. Therefore in my opinion the trial court should have decided the prayers made by plaintiff after giving hearing opportunity to the defendants. The impugned order is not sustainable. Accordingly I allow the appeal and set aside the impugned order without any finding on merits of the case.”
Meanwhile, another judge at the same court has reserved judgment on a plea by journalist Paranjoy Guha Thakurta challenging the gag order.
Advocate Vrinda Grover, representing the four journalists, argued that most of the publications in question had been public since June 2024, and there were no urgent circumstances justifying the civil court’s “extraordinary and exceptional relief” of an ex-parte interim injunction months after publication.
“Why the rush? Why no notice could have given to us for two days? Majority of publications are from June 2024 onwards. How have they explained the delay is their burden,” she said.
Grover further contended that the civil court provided no reasoning to deem the publications unverified or defamatory.
“How did the court come to the finding that articles are unverified? I will go to articles. One is based on what Kenyan govt has said. One is based on a Swiss judgment. Are you saying the Kenyan govt doesn’t know what it is saying?…When we are before the court, it doesn’t matter who is the plaintiff…The burden to be discharged will be higher when such kind of relief is sought…The burden is yet to be discharged,” she argued.
She also slammed the civil court’s “blanket” order, which led to hundreds of videos and posts being removed.
“It is a John Doe order, in rem, order in future. Is there any law in this country which can ask anyone, particularly the press, that you wont write or question any entity in this country? That is not what the law allows. Tsunami orders of take down already happened. SC uses a phrase, would the heaves fall? Would the heavens have fallen if notice would have given to me? Now heavens have fallen on what is the law of the land…Please note freedom of speech of expression, the journalists are agents of the press who take this right forward,” she submitted.
Advocate Vijay Aggarwal countered that a podcast about the company was recently shared and liked on social media in August.
“It is a Campaign by them that you do it today, tomorrow someone else will do it…Guha has filed an appeal which was listed today. Defendants 2-5 (journalists) have come together. It itself shows its a strategy…They are all contributors. All of them like writing against me…it is a completely malicious targeting…Every tweet retweet like amounts to republication. It is happening even now,” he said, alleging the journalists were under NIA investigation for receiving Chinese funding.
He added that the journalists could have sought to vacate the injunction under Order 39 Rule 4 of CPC.
“The law recognizes ex parte. They have come here in appeal, they can say the same before that court. They have remedy of Order 39 Rule 4,” he said.
Aggarwal further argued that detailed orders are not required at interlocutory stages.
“They say this company has been favoured by ruling government. How? Why? When? No details…Various of these articles are based on Hindenburg report. SC has said that there was no fault of Adani group…Judge has passed an order on perusal of plaint. It is a fit case that a john doe order is passed.”
Grover also argued that while the articles concern both Gautam Adani and his companies, the former has not approached the court, questioning the company’s locus to sue on his behalf.
“The individual is not before your lords. Does this plaintiff has a locus in this case is also a question in this appeal. He is not before the court. The company is before my lords.”
(Edited by Amit Vasudev)
