Will Not Make New Requests For Take Down Of Reports By Newslaundry: Adani Enterprises Tells Delhi High Court

Adani Enterprises told the Delhi High Court on Thursday (September 25) that it will not make any fresh take down request with respect to news reports by digital news platform Newslaundry regarding the company.

The submission was made by Senior Advocate Anurag Ahluwalia representing Adani Enterprises Limited before Justice Sachin Datta.

The court was hearing pleas by digital news platform Newslaundry and journalist Ravish Kumar challenging Centre's direction asking digital news publishers to take down multiple reports and videos concerning the Adani Group of Companies.

Senior Advocate Saurabh Kirpal appearing for Newslaundry along with Advocate Bani Dixit submitted, "Ex parte order passed against nine defendants and one john doe. Without notice, directing take-down. Some persons were named and served. They filed an appeal. There is a stay".

Kirpal said that the appellate court had granted stay with respect to certain journalists on September 18. "Stayed only qua those who went in appeal. We are john doe defendant...," he added.

Meanwhile senior advocate Trideep Pais appearing for Ravish Kumar said that  a John Doe order is normally passed to curb further proliferation of an illegality.

Kirpal said that when Newslaundry approached the appellate court, it issued notice. 

"Under what provisions has the government directed us to take down? Who informed them…. On September 16, they (Government) say take down in 36 hours. Government is not a party (to the suit). There are intermediary guidelines which prohibit defamatory articles. I am not an intermediary...," he added.

Kirpal argued that the petitioner's relief in the present writ petition is against government order's of September 16.

Kirpal further said, "Is it that the government is reading that 'I will still have to take down when the order is stayed qua other appellants?' Qua some appellants, it is stayed, order is communicated to us by the government..."

Meanwhile the counsel appearing for the central government submitted that the IT Rules specify that when the government receives a court order, it has to communicate.

"So the government is simply acting as post office here? You are only passing court order to other party," the court asked. 

The government's counsel said that whenever the ministry receives request from a party about a court order, the government only communicates to the concerned that 'please implement the court order'.

"The appellate court order is also informed to us. We immediately forwarded those orders also. My job is only to communicate. Thats all. If appellate court says stays, thats all," he added. 

Kirpal however said that the government has passed the order and Newslaundry had an issue with the order. The court at this stage remarked that the government has called upon the news platform to act on the basis of the latest court order.

Kirpal however said, "I am not the appellant. Qua those who are not appellant, the order is not set aside. No one wants to live in a democracy where there is a threat that an order will be interpreted here and there. This is not part of the IT guidelines. This is about someone who got excited about the order".

Referring to the definition of intermediary, Kirpal said, "This is like Facebook. Facebook does it on my behalf and then it becomes an intermediary. I am not the intermediary. I am the originator. I have stored it. Ruled 3(d) doesn't apply to me. Adani is here. They are not required to be heard. Let them move an impleadment. We are fighting a battle against them in Rohini Courts".

Thereafter, Ahluwalia submitted that the same material in Newslaundry's petition is also present in their appeal before trial court. However Kirpal opposed the said submission. 

The court asked Ahluwalia, "Did you apprise the government of the order?" to which he responded in the affirmative. The court thereafter asked Adani Enterprises to move an impleadment application in the matter. 

As Kirpal pressed for stay, the court asked if Newslaundry had complied with the order to which Kirpal said, "I have not taken down. I am yet to comply". 

At this stage, Ahluwalia said, "We wont be asking (for take down of) any further material. Whatever has been (asked to) pull down is done." 

Kirpal then said that even he will take instructions, adding that the ex-parte gag order says that no new material will be uploaded.

The court then remarked, "All that will be subject to the appellate court". To this Kirpal said, "That will stop my journalistic activity". 

Pais referred to the ex-parte gag order and submitted, "Hosts of material is cited in the plaint. Documents are filed…. This order gives power to the plaintiff (Adani Enterprises) to directly inform the intermediary". 

Pais then informed Court that even Ravish Kumar has filed an appeal before the trial court against the gag order. On this, Ahluwalia clarified that his instructions today were only for Newslaundry, as the factum of filing of Kumar's appeal was not within his knowledge.

The parties then said that they will seek instructions in the matter. The case will now be heard tomorrow.

For context, District judge Sunil Chaudhary on Wednesday reserved order in the appeal filed by journalist Paranjoy Guha Thakurta challenging the ex-parte gag order restraining reporting against Adani, to the same judge who had quashed that order qua four other journalists.

On the other hand, the judge had sought response of Adani Enterprises in the appeal filed by Newslaundry.

Notably, District Judge Ashish Aggarwal of the Rohini Courts had on September 18 quashed an ex-parte order gag passed by the lower court on September 06, restraining 'defamatory' publications about the Adani Group on appeals preferred by four journalists Ravi Nair, Abir Dasgupta, Ayaskant Das and Ayush Joshi.

In its petition, Newslaundry has challenged the communication issued by the Ministry on September 16 to Newslaundry, as well as many other independent journalists and content creators such as Dhruv Rathee, Ravish Kumar, Abhisar Sarma, Deshbhakt (Akash Banerjee), Paranjoy Guha Thakurta etc.

The Ministry asked them to "take appropriate action" to comply with an ex-parte order passed by a Delhi Civil Court on September 16 directing the removal of defamatory and unverified content published against Gautam Adani and the Adani group of companies.

Newslaundry contended that they were not parties in the civil suit, and the order passed by the Court did not refer to any content published by them. They also stated that they got information about the Court's order only through the communication issued by the MIB on September 16.

They contended that the MIB's directive was an "administrative overreach" and "inherently arbitrary exercise of executive power" by directing action on the basis of an order passed in a civil dispute between private 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," the petitioner stated.

The Delhi Civil Court had passed the order in a civil defamation suit filed by Adani group against certain specific journalists. The Court's order also covered "John Doe" defendants who published similar content. An appellate Court had set aside the lower Court's ex-parte order as regards four journalists.

In his petition, Kumar has challenged the same order saying that it represents an unprecedented and unconstitutional exercise of executive power that strikes at the very foundation of democratic governance, press freedom and the separation of powers doctrine enshrined in the Constitution of India.

He has said though he was not a defendant in the defamation suit in which the impugned order was passed, but he has been directly and adversely affected by Centre's directive as his YouTube videos have been targeted for takedown.

As per the plea, the chilling effect of such governmental overreach extends beyond individual content creators to the entire ecosystem of independent journalism and public discourse in the country.

The petition seeks a declaration that prior restraint on journalistic content requires strict constitutional compliance with Article 19(2) safeguards and that the same has been violated by the Central Government.

It further seeks a direction on the Centre to refrain from issuing similar orders without constitutional and statutory compliance.

A further direction is sought on the Union Government to establish clear guidelines for any content-related administrative action, establishing safeguards against executive overreach in content regulation while protecting journalists and content creators.

Case title: NEWSLAUNDRY MEDIA PVT LTD V/s UNION OF INDIA with RAVISH KUMAR V/s UNION OF INDIA

W.P.(C)-14562/2025 and W.P.(C)-14643/2025