Newslaundry moves Delhi HC against govt order on Adani content takedown

Digital news outlet Newslaundry filed a petition in the Delhi High Court challenging a directive issued by the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting (MIB), which asked several journalists and platforms to remove reports and videos related to the Adani Group.

The matter was listed before Justice Sachin Datta on Friday, September 19, but could not be heard. It has been deferred to Monday, September 22.

The MIB on September 16 circulated a communication to multiple independent journalists and content creators, including Dhruv Rathee, Ravish Kumar, Abhisar Sharma, Akash Banerjee (Deshbhakt) and Paranjoy Guha Thakurta, directing them to comply with an ex-parte order of a Delhi Civil Court, as per LiveLaw.

ALSO READ: Paranjoy Guha Thakurta, others move Delhi court against order restraining Adani reporting

Passed the same day, the trial order had instructed the removal of "defamatory and unverified" content against Gautam Adani and his companies.

'No legal or constitutional basis' 

Newslaundry argued that it was not a party to the civil defamation suit filed by Adani Enterprises and had no prior knowledge of the court's order until it received the MIB's notice. It contended that the directive amounted to "administrative overreach" since it compelled action based on a private dispute between different parties.

"The Impugned Order has no legal, statutory and/or constitutional basis in the first place. The government cannot seek compliance with court orders in complete violation of the principles of separation of powers," Newslaundry's petition was quoted as saying by LiveLaw.

The petition also argued that the government had issued a blanket order without determining whether the content in question was defamatory. Newslaundry stated that one cited video was simply an interview with Maharashtra politician Aditya Thackeray that made no mention of Adani, while another was flagged only because its description referred to the Dharavi redevelopment project as "controversial."

'Arbitrary overreach,' says Newslaundry

Newslaundry contended that the directive was inconsistent with the framework of Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, which requires that the order be issued by an officer of joint Secretary rank, and did not follow the procedure prescribed under the Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking for Access of Information by Public) Rules, 2009.

It also stated that the government order was an "arbitrary overreach" and was to protect private interests of the entity.

"It is evident that the Respondent on its own accord and/or with the intent of protection of private interests, and in grave violation of Article 19 of the Constitution of India, directed necessary action by the Petitioner which is nothing short of an arbitrary overreach of the powers vested with the Respondent under the present statutory/ constitutional regime," the petition added, as per Bar and Bench.

ALSO READ: Paranjoy Guha Thakurta, others move Delhi court against order restraining Adani reporting