A Delhi court on Wednesday refused to urgently hear journalist Paranjoy Guha Thakurta’s appeal against a gag order restraining him from publishing alleged defamatory stories against Adani Enterprises Limited (AEL).
District Judge Rakesh Kumar Singh of the Rohini Court said that since the injunction order had been passed on 6 September 2025, the matter could be heard on 18 September 2025 (Thursday) rather than on Wednesday.
“It will be heard tomorrow at 10AM,” the judge ultimately said.
The case was initially listed before District Judge Sunil Chaudhary, but as he was on leave, it was transferred to Judge Singh.
During the proceedings, Judge Singh questioned the urgency of the matter and asked why it could not be heard by the regular judge.
“What if your client doesn’t publish for two days? Is it a matter of life and death? What if the published work is removed? Would the client’s business suffer? What if the case is heard tomorrow at 10 o’clock,” the Court remarked.
Appearing for Thakurta, Senior Advocate Trideep Pais argued that the lower court had passed an overbroad order without hearing him.
“The Court does not mention which part, URL is defamatory. Court has not shown what is that material which is false, defamatory and why it should be injuncted. It is the duty of the plaintiff to show what is defamatory and the Court to rule on what is defamatory,” he submitted.
On the other hand, Senior Advocate Anurag Ahluwalia, representing Adani Enterprises, said there was no urgency and that the matter should be heard by Judge Singh.
“There is another appeal coming tomorrow. There is no urgency,” Ahluwalia stated.
The court ultimately listed the matter for hearing on Thursday morning.
The September 6 Order
On September 6, Senior Civil Judge Anuj Kumar Singh of the Rohini Court had ordered removal of the defamatory content against AEL and directed journalists to refrain from publishing unverified or defamatory information about the company.
The order was passed not only against Thakurta but also against journalists Ravi Nair, Abir Dasgupta, Ayaskant Das, and Ayush Joshi.
The journalists then filed two separate challenges to the order. Thakurta’s plea was listed on Wednesday, while the case of the other journalists is expected to be taken up on Thursday.
Arguments of the Journalists
The journalists have maintained that Adani Enterprises Limited was not mentioned in their reports, which referred only to Gautam Adani or the Adani Group.
“It is submitted that a bare perusal of the reproduced portions of the alleged defamatory articles clearly reveals that at no place has the Plaintiff been called out, referred to, or even remotely mentioned. In each and every impugned publication, the references are confined exclusively to Mr. Gautam Adani or to the Adani Group,” the petition states.
Thakurta’s appeal further argued that the trial court had issued an “over-broad and all-encompassing restraining order” without specifying which particular content was defamatory.
Adani Enterprises’ Position
In the defamation suit before the civil judge, Adani Enterprises Limited alleged that certain journalists, activists, and organizations damaged its reputation and caused losses worth billions of dollars by tarnishing its image, brand equity, and the credibility of India’s global standing.
The company argued that these groups had “aligned with anti-India interests and have been continuously targeting Adani Enterprises’ infrastructure and energy projects which are critical to India’s infrastructure and energy security and have disrupted these projects with ulterior motives.”
AEL also pointed to articles published on paranjoy.in, adaniwatch.org, and adanifiles.com.au, claiming that these websites had repeatedly published defamatory content against the company, the Adani Group, and its founder and chairman, Gautam Adani.
(With inputs from Bar and Bench)
Subscribe to our channels on Telegram, WhatsApp, and Instagram and get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.