Journalist Paranjoy Guha Thakurta, Others Move Delhi Court Against Order Restraining Them From Publishing Reports On Adani Group

Journalist Paranjoy Guha Thakurta and others have moved a Delhi Court challenging a lower court order restraining them from publishing stories about the Adani Group.

The other journalists are Ravi Nair, Abir Dasgupta, Ayaskant Das and Ayush Joshi.

The journalists have challenged an order passed by Special Civil Judge Anuj Kumar Singh of Rohini Courts. The appeals have been filed before the district court.

Vide the impugned order, the judge had prima facie observed that the reports published by the journalists about the Adani Group were defamatory and unverified.

The judge had passed the ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favour of Adani Enterprises Limited against the journalists and three websites- pranjoy.in, adaniwatch.org and adanifiles.com.au.

Background and About Impugned Order

The Court had said that there was a prima facie case in favour of the Adani Group and that the balance of convenience lies in its favour, considering that continual forwarding or publishing or re-tweeting and trolling against it would further tarnish its image in public perception and may result in media trial.

The suit alleged that the defendants were running “agenda driven” websites and were repeatedly publishing baseless and defamatory content against the Adani Group, its Founder and Chairman.

It was averred that apart from the websites in question, defamatory material was shared widely on Social Medial platforms, other websites and several John Doe persons were publishing the same across various media and websites.

It was contended that Adani Enterprises was being maliciously and deliberately attacked its operations were hampered globally, droving away their investors, wiping off massive amount of funds of investors and created panic in the market.

Vide the impugned order, the Court had directed the journalists to expunge the defamatory material against Adani Group from their respective articles or social media posts or tweets and if the same is not feasible, remove the same within 5 days.

“Also, attention of defendants are drawn to Rule 3 of Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code), Rules 2021 requiring due diligence by the intermediary in hosting/storing/publishing such material. Specifically, attention of the defendants is also drawn to Rule 3(1)(d) of the aforesaid IT Rules, it is also incumbent upon the intermediary to remove / disable access to such content within 36 hours from receipt of such order of the Court or on being notified by the Appropriate Government or its agency,” the Court had ordered.