Delhi Court Quashes Order Restraining Journalists From Publishing Stories Against Adani Enterprises

A Delhi court on Thursday lifted a gag order that had prevented journalists Ravi Nair, Abir Dasgupta, Ayaskant Das and Ayush Joshi from publishing allegedly defamatory reports about Adani Enterprises Limited (AEL), ruling that the earlier sessions court order was unsustainable as it was passed without giving the defendants a chance to be heard.Ashish Aggarwal, District Judge of the Rohini Court said, "I am of the opinion that the sessions court ought to have made an opinion of the content. While articles and posts spanning a substantial period (2024-2025) were questioned by the plaintiff, the court did not deem it fit to grant an opportunity of hearing to the defendants...In my opinion that opportunity ought to have been granted before passing

the order...That not having been done, the order is not sustainable. The order is set aside. The order will be applicable only qua the appellants before this court."Notably, Advocates Vrinda Grover and Nakul Gandhi appeared for the journalists. Grover argued, "An ex parte ad interim order has been obtained for a June 2024 article. What rush? Why no notice even of two days or three days? The court would have had the benefit of hearing us. The company which runs one of the largest media houses in the country says it ran into these articles just now?"Noting that the order had already led to the removal of hundreds of videos and posts, Grover, according to Bar and Bench, said, "They are asking for intermediaries to take it down. There are prayers of John Doe. The prayers are over-arching and sweeping. When you are asking for the sun and moon the burden on them is higher. There is no reason given for passing extraordinary tsunami order."Grover challenged the filing, arguing it was presented as a defamation suit but functioned as a declaration suit to avoid the higher burden of proof required for defamation cases."Whether it is unsubstantiated unverified or defamatory is the nub of the suit. Why the suit for declaration is a question I ask. It is because in defamation you have to discharge the burden of pointing out which material is defamatory or malicious. I have the justification of truth and fair comment."Further questioning the jurisdiction of the court, Grover said, "The plaintiff (Adani Enterprises) is a company and the articles deal with an individual. There is nothing against this plaintiff. Does this plaintiff even have a locus before this court?"Making arguments on behalf of Adani Enterprises Limited (AEL), Advocate Vijay Aggarwal said, "These defendants are fed by the Chinese government and against these people NIA investigation is going on."Regarding the articles’ claims that the Central government was favouring Adani, he said, "They say rules have been bent and the company has been favoured by the government. How? When? Why? Nothing."Noting this, the court said, "If the court is faced with the defamation case it is supposed to verify the veracity of the accusations. Has the Supreme Court said that it [its order in Hindenburg case] will become a finding of the fact?"