A Delhi court on Thursday reserved its order on an appeal filed by journalist Paranjoy Guha Thakurta challenging a gag order that restrained him from publishing allegedly defamatory stories against Adani Enterprises Limited (AEL).
District Judge Sunil Chaudhary of the Rohini Court reserved the verdict after hearing arguments from both sides at length.
Senior Advocate Trideep Pais, appearing for Thakurta, argued that the injunction was overbroad and lacked clarity. “The urgency is that an order has been passed by Central government to intermediaries to remove all the materials,” Pais submitted.
He contended that the companies mentioned in the impugned articles were not all Adani’s. “They say my reporting is damaging India’s energy interests. Trying to equate themselves with India. Court did not say how the material is defamatory or if the injunction is not granted it will cause irreparable loss…The order says they (AEL) have not been found guilty of anything. But that is not the test of defamation,” Pais argued.
Criticising the scope of the order, he added: “A site has many articles. The judge has left it to the plaintiff to write to the intermediaries and get removed anything they find defamatory…The plaintiff has been put in the shoes of a judge.”
Pais also questioned the role of the Central government, saying it had acted despite not being a party to the proceedings.
During the hearing, the court asked Adani’s counsel to clarify jurisdiction. Advocate Vijay Aggarwal, representing Adani, argued that the defamation was online and therefore fell under its scope. Another counsel sought an injunction until the case was decided.
However, Judge Chaudhary observed, “Till the court makes a declaration, how can the injunction be passed?” When Aggarwal said Adani had not yet filed a reply, the judge responded, “To aap reply file kare hum tab tak stay kar dete hain. Aapne to caveat file kar rakha tha. Inko to pata bhi nahi tha ki aap Rohini main suit file karoge. (You file a reply, till then we will stay the order. You have filed a caveat. They didn’t even know you would file a suit in Rohini Court).”
Senior Advocate Anurag Ahluwalia, also representing Adani Enterprises, said the Supreme Court had already given the company a clean chit. Taking the court through the order under challenge, he submitted, “The court has given a finding that the further publication and circulation may tarnish my image.”
When asked by the court to identify the defamatory material, Ahluwalia pointed to a line alleging that government norms were tweaked for Adani. The judge replied, “To isme aapko kya dikkat ho rahi hai? (What is your problem with that?).”
Ahluwalia also cited another article alleging the Modi government altered rules for the company’s benefit. At this point, the court pressed him to demonstrate how such reports affected Adani’s share price.
“Yesterday, they started with saying that the Central government is in our pocket,” Ahluwalia said. The judge interjected, “Aap bhi kisi ko pocket main hoge. Bolta rahe…Koi kuchh bhi bolta hai. (You are also in someone’s pocket. Let them say… people will say things).”
Ahluwalia further argued: “Is article ki language…they declare it as a scam. When you have such materials, you don’t publish but you go around and say there is a scam. Our agony is that the buck doesn’t stop here. Time and again, there are articles tarnishing me. If they are journalists…They are sitting and scheming in the room, making up stories. Should I wait for my shares to go down…My lord should ask them what is the China angle behind them.”
Aggarwal also pointed out that Thakurta was being investigated by the National Investigation Agency (NIA) in a terror case.
Responding, Pais reiterated that his reporting was based on publicly available information. “The US material was in public domain,” he said.
After hearing rejoinders, the court reserved its order.
The appeal was filed after Senior Civil Judge Anuj Kumar Singh of the Rohini Court, on 6 September 2025, ordered removal of allegedly defamatory content against AEL and restrained journalists from publishing unverified material about the company.
Thakurta and other journalists challenged the order, arguing that their reports referred to Gautam Adani and the Adani Group, not AEL specifically. “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 stated.
Thakurta’s appeal also claimed the order was “over-broad and all-encompassing” as it did not identify which specific content was defamatory.
In its defamation suit, Adani Enterprises alleged that certain journalists, activists and organisations had damaged its reputation and caused stakeholders “billions of dollars” in losses. The company accused them of aligning with “anti-India interests” and targeting its infrastructure and energy projects.
The suit cited material published on websites including paranjoy.in, adaniwatch.org and adanifiles.com.au.
The appeal on behalf of Thakurta was filed through Advocates Apar Gupta, Indumugi C and Naman Kumar, while another appeal on behalf of journalists Ravi Nair, Abir Dasgupta, Ayaskant Das and Ayush Joshi was filed by NG Law Chambers through Advocate Nakul Gandhi.
(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.
