Newslaundry Moves Delhi High Court Challenging Centre's Directive For Removal Of Content Against Adani Companies

Digital news platform Newslaundry has approached the Delhi High Court challenging a direction issued by the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting (MIB) asking digital news publishers to take down multiple reports and videos concerning the Adani Group of Companies.

The matter was listed before the Bench of Justice Sachin Datta today; however, it was not taken up and has now been adjourned to Monday.

In the writ petition filed under Article 226, Newslaundry is challenging 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 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.  On a related note, an appellate Court in Delhi yesterday set aside the trial Court's ex-parte order as regards four journalists.

They further contended that the Court's order only applied to "defamatory" and "incorrect reports" and without a determination on this aspect, a blanket take-down order cannot be issued.

They argued that the YouTube and Instagram links concerning Newslaundry mentioned in the MIB's directive do not contain any defamatory or unsubstantiated reports/allegations. It was said that one among the cited videos was an interview with Aditya Thackeray, which had no reference to Adani or his companies at all. Another video was directed to be taken down merely because its description said that Adani's Dharavi slum development project was controversial.  It was argued that the Ministry went beyond the ambit of the Court order by directing excessive and disproportionate action.

Case : Newslaundry v. Union of India WP(C) 14562 of 2025