Delhi Court Quashes Ex-Parte Gag Order Restricting Four Journalists From Reporting On Adani Group

A Delhi Court today quashed the ex-parte order gag passed by the lower court on September 06, restraining 'defamatory' publications about the Adani Group.

District Judge Ashish Aggarwal of the Rohini Courts passed the order on an appeal preferred by four journalists Ravi Nair, Abir Dasgupta, Ayaskant Das and Ayush Joshi.

The judge observed that the articles had been in public domain for long and hence, the civil judge ought to have heard the journalists before directing take down of their articles.

"While articles and posts spanning a substantial period were questioned by plaintiff through the suit, the court didn't deem it fit to grant opportunity of hearing to defendants before passing impugned order. In my opinion the civil judge ought to have granted that opportunity before passing an order which had impact of prima facie declaring articles are defamatory and even directing their removal," the judge said.

He further observed,

"The effect would be in the event of the court of senior civil judge subsequently finding that the articles are not defamatory, after defendants put forth their defence, it is not feasible that articles which have been removed would then be restored. Therefore in my opinion the trial court should have decided the prayers made by plaintiff after giving hearing opportunity to the defendants. The impugned order is not sustainable. Accordingly I allow the appeal and set aside the impugned order without any finding on merits of the case."

Significant to note that another judge of the same court has reserved verdict on journalist Paranjoy Guha Thakurta's plea against the gag order.

Advocate Vrinda Grover appearing for the four journalists in this case had argued that majority of publications impugned were in public domain since June 2024 and there were no emergent circumstances for the civil court to grant the "extraordinary and exceptional relief" of ex-parte interim injunction months after publication.

"Why the rush? Why no notice could have given to us for two days? Majority of publications are from June 2024 onwards. How have they explained the delay is their burden," she said.

Grover further argued that the civil court gave no reasoning to form an opinion that the publications are unverified or defamatory.

"How did the court come to the finding that articles are unverified? I will go to articles. One is based on what Kenyan govt has said. One is based on a Swiss judgment. Are you saying the Kenyan govt doesn't know what it is saying?...When we are before the court, it doesn't matter who is the plaintiff...The burden to be discharged will be higher when such kind of relief is sought...The burden is yet to be discharged," she said.

She further contended that the civil court passed a "blanket" order, leading to hundreds of videos and posts being taken down.

"It is a john doe order, in rem, order in future. Is there any law in this country which can ask anyone, particularly the press, that you wont write or question any entity in this country? That is not what the law allows. Tsunami orders of take down already happened. SC uses a phrase, would the heaves fall? Would the heavens have fallen if notice would have given to me? Now heavens have fallen on what is the law of the land...Please note freedom of speech of expression, the journalists are agents of the press who take this right forward," she submitted.

At this juncture, the Court orally asked the counsel representing Adani Enterprises,

"Can you tell me what was the hurry that the order had to be passed?"

Advocate Vijay Aggarwal responded that a podcast about the company was recently (in August) shared and liked on social media.

"It is a Campaign by them that you do it today, tomorrow someone else will do it...Guha has filed an appeal which was listed today. Defendants 2-5 (journalists) have come together. It itself shows its a strategy...They are all contributors. All of them like writing against me...it is a completely malicious targeting...Every tweet retweet like amounts to republication. It is happening even now," he said, adding that the journalists are under NIA probe for taking Chinese funding.

He further submitted that the journalists were free to approach the civil court under Order 39 Rule 4 of CPC and seek to vacate the injunction. "The law recognizes ex parte. They have come here in appeal, they can say the same before that court. They have remedy of Order 39 Rule 4," he said.

Aggarwal added that at interlocutory stages, detailed orders are not required. "They say this company has been favoured by ruling government. How? Why? When? No details...Various of these articles are based on Hindenburg report. SC has said that there was no fault of Adani group...Judge has passed an order on perusal of plaint. It is a fit case that a john doe order is passed."

In her submissions, Grover also argued that while the articles deal with both Gautam Adani and his group of companies, the former has not approached the Court. Thus, she challenged the very locus of the company to sue on behalf of the billionaire businessman. She said, "The individual is not before your lords. Does this plaintiff has a locus in this case is also a question in this appeal. He is not before the court. The company is before my lords."

The journalists were represented by advocates Vrinda Grover, Nakul Gandhi, Soutik Banerjee and Devika Tulsiani.