Newslaundry, Ravish Kumar Reach Understanding With Adani Enterprises, Delhi High Court Closes Pleas Against Centre's Take Down Orders
The Delhi High Court on Friday (September 26) closed two pleas filed by digital news platform Newslaundry and journalist Ravish Kumar challenging Centre's direction asking them to take down multiple reports and videos concerning the Adani Group of Companies, after noting that the parties have reached an 'understanding'.While permitting impleadment applications filed by Adani Enterprises in...
The Delhi High Court on Friday (September 26) closed two pleas filed by digital news platform Newslaundry and journalist Ravish Kumar challenging Centre's direction asking them to take down multiple reports and videos concerning the Adani Group of Companies, after noting that the parties have reached an 'understanding'.
While permitting impleadment applications filed by Adani Enterprises in both the petitions, Justice Sachin Datta asked the petitioners to file amendment memo of parties.
It further noted the understanding between the parties that Adani in its suit will not seek that Newslaundry and Ravish Kumar take down any further material hosted on their sites or any other intermediary existing as on 12 PM on September 26, till the company's interim injunction application is decided finally by the senior civil judge.
Senior Advocate Anurag Ahluwalia appearing for Adani Enterprises Limited submitted that instead of filing appeals, both Newslaundry and Ravish Kumar "will go before senior civil judge and argue Order 39 Rule 1,2 (CPC application)".
Meanwhile senior advocate Trideep Pais submitted that the one pending appeal (by Paranjoy Guha Thakurta) also was decided yesterday where the district court had held that the lower court's ex-parte gag order will not apply till fresh orders are passed by the Senior Civil Judge.
The high court thereafter noted:
"The understating is to the effect that the plaintiff in the suit (Adani) will not seek that the present petitioners take down any further material hosted on their sites or any other intermediary existing as on 12 PM on September 26. It is agreed that in case the petitioners have already taken down any material, the same shall not be re-uploaded. It is agreed that the understanding subsists only till the plaintiff's application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 is decided and disposed of in the civil suit"
"The counsel for Union of India states that the impugned communication was issues by way of an information to the concerned parties as to the order passed by the civil court. It is pointed out that the order of the appellate court which set aside the ad interim order qua the appellants, the order of the appellate court was also communicated. Needless to state that in light of the aforesaid understanding, the Union of India will address a corrigendum to the petitioners"
Noting that nothing in the present order shall be construed as an opinion on the merits or expression of the case, the court disposed of both the writ petitions. Senior advocate Saurabh Kirpal appeared for Newslaundry.
Yesterday, Adani Enterprises told Court that it will not make any fresh take down request with respect to news reports by digital news platform Newslaundry regarding the company.
For context, yesterday, District Judge Sunil Chaudhary said that journalist Paranjoy Guha Thakurta is not bound by the ex-parte gag order passed by a lower court restraining him from reporting on Adani Enterprises till fresh orders are passed by the Senior Civil Judge.
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 the 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 before the high court, 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.
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.
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.
Case title: NEWSLAUNDRY MEDIA PVT LTD V/s UNION OF INDIA with RAVISH KUMAR V/s UNION OF INDIA
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1194
W.P.(C)-14562/2025 and W.P.(C)-14643/2025