New Delhi: In a significant relief to Adani Enterprises Limited (AEL), a Delhi court on Saturday passed an interim order restraining a group of journalists, activists and foreign-linked organisations from publishing or circulating allegedly unverified and defamatory content against the company.
Senior Civil Judge Anuj Kumar Singh, while hearing a defamation suit filed by AEL, also directed the defendants to take down contentious material about the company already published on various platforms, including articles on websites and social media posts, within a stipulated period.
According to the suit, AEL alleged that coordinated defamatory publications on paranjoy.in, adaniwatch.org and adanifiles.com.au, along with related videos and posts, were deliberately designed to tarnish its reputation and disrupt its global business operations.
The defendants in the case are Paranjoy Guha Thakurta, Ravi Nair, Abir Dasgupta, Ayaskanta Das, Ayush Joshi, Bob Brown Foundation, Dreamscape Network International Private Limited, Getup Limited, Domain Directors Private Limited trading as Instra and John Doe persons.
AEL’s counsel Vijay Aggarwal argued in the court that unchecked dissemination of baseless allegations had not only tarnished the company’s reputation but also caused incalculable damage to investors.
He said the company was never found guilty by any regulatory authority or a court of law, and after facing regulatory and media scrutiny in 2023, it came out clean and rebuilt market confidence.
The court said the plaintiff’s grievance was that the alleged defamatory articles could cause strain to its balance sheet, delay execution of projects, wipe off investors’ money worth billions, create panic in the market, cause loss of goodwill and reputation at a global scale, besides resulting in the loss of present and future businesses and also hindering the firm’s ability to raise funds.
“There is a prima facie case in favour of the plaintiff. Even the balance of convenience lies in favour of the plaintiff, considering that continual forwarding/publishing/re-tweeting and trolling would further tarnish his image in public perception and may result in a media trial,” the court said.
It then restrained the defendants from publishing, distributing or circulating “unverified, unsubstantiated and ex-facie defamatory reports” about the plaintiff, allegedly tarnishing its reputation, till the next date of hearing.
“To the extent that the articles and posts are incorrect and unverified and prima facie defamatory, defendant nos 1 to 10 are also directed to expunge such defamatory material from their respective articles/social media posts/tweets, and if the same is not feasible, remove the same within five days from the date of this order,” the court said.
It directed the intermediaries hosting the content to remove it within 36 hours of being notified, in accordance with the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules.
The interim injunction also restrained the defendants from making any further unverified or unsubstantiated statements about AEL and allowed the company to notify additional links for takedown, if any alleged defamatory content was found.
The court, however, said it was not issuing a blanket order restraining the defendants from fair, verified and substantiated reporting and from hosting, storing or circulating such articles, posts or URLs.
It further said, “It is clarified that this order shall not have a bearing on the merits of the matter and shall not be construed to restrain any person from reporting about investigation and court proceedings in relation to the allegations so long as it is fair and accurate reporting based on substantiated and verified material.” The court posted the matter for further proceedings on October 9.
(This report has been published as part of the auto-generated syndicate wire feed. Apart from the headline, no editing has been done in the copy by ABP Live.)
