The Crossbill Team
A Delhi district court has issued an ex parte interim order directing several journalists and activists to remove articles and social media posts allegedly defaming Adani Enterprises, while also restraining them from publishing such material against the conglomerate until the next hearing.
The order was issued by Senior Civil Judge Anuj Kumar Singh of the North West Delhi district court on Saturday, September 6, Live Law reported.
The ex parte order, issued without hearing the ten defendants, includes journalists Paranjoy Guha Thakurta, Ravi Nair, Abir Dasgupta, Ayaskant Das, and Ayush Joshi. Adani Enterprises accused these individuals, along with certain organizations, of maliciously damaging the reputation of its parent conglomerate, resulting in massive losses to its stakeholders and a “massive loss to the image, brand equity and credibility of India’s brand as a country,” as noted in the court order.
Adani alleged that the defendants were “aligning with anti-India interests” and disrupting its energy and infrastructure projects “with ulterior motives.”
The firm argued that the defendants repeatedly relied on Hindenburg Research’s 2023 report, which accused the Adani Group of “brazen stock manipulation,” an “accounting fraud scheme,” and conducting the “largest con in corporate history.”
Adani Group denied these allegations, but the report reportedly led to a loss of about $135 billion in market value for the conglomerate.
Adani’s suit named three websites run by the defendants as having published allegedly defamatory content, which was also shared on social media. The conglomerate sought an ex parte interim injunction, claiming that “defamatory articles/tweets may possibly be circulated/shared/re-tweeted causing further loss of reputation to the plaintiff [Adani].”
After considering the arguments, the court concluded that the case satisfied the three-fold test for granting ex parte interim relief: a prima facie case in the plaintiff’s favour, the “balance of convenience” favouring the plaintiff, and the risk of irreparable injury if the injunction was not granted.
However, while upholding the constitutionally guaranteed freedom of speech, Judge Singh ruled against a blanket ban.
“It would suffice the interest of justice to restrain defendants no. 1 to 10 from publishing/ distributing/ circulating unverified, unsubstantiated and ex-facie defamatory reports about the plaintiff allegedly tarnishing the reputation of the plaintiff till the next date of hearing,” the order stated, reported Bar and Bench.
The defendants were also directed to remove material from their articles or posts “to the extent that [they] are incorrect and unverified and prima facie defamatory.”
The ruling comes in the context of the Supreme Court’s March 2024 judgment, which cautioned against mechanical application of the three-fold test in defamation suits, especially where journalistic work is involved.
The apex court had warned that such cases often go “to the detriment of the public” and highlighted the increasing misuse of SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation) suits by powerful entities to suppress media and civil society voices.
“The grant of an interim injunction, before the trial commences, often acts as a ‘death sentence’ to the material sought to be published, well before the allegations have been proven,” the Supreme Court had observed.
The current order appears to walk a fine line, aiming to balance Adani Enterprises’ concerns over alleged defamation with the constitutional right to free expression.
The order was issued by Senior Civil Judge Anuj Kumar Singh of the North West Delhi district court on Saturday, September 6, Live Law reported.
The ex parte order, issued without hearing the ten defendants, includes journalists Paranjoy Guha Thakurta, Ravi Nair, Abir Dasgupta, Ayaskant Das, and Ayush Joshi. Adani Enterprises accused these individuals, along with certain organizations, of maliciously damaging the reputation of its parent conglomerate, resulting in massive losses to its stakeholders and a “massive loss to the image, brand equity and credibility of India’s brand as a country,” as noted in the court order.
Adani alleged that the defendants were “aligning with anti-India interests” and disrupting its energy and infrastructure projects “with ulterior motives.”
The firm argued that the defendants repeatedly relied on Hindenburg Research’s 2023 report, which accused the Adani Group of “brazen stock manipulation,” an “accounting fraud scheme,” and conducting the “largest con in corporate history.”
Adani Group denied these allegations, but the report reportedly led to a loss of about $135 billion in market value for the conglomerate.
Adani’s suit named three websites run by the defendants as having published allegedly defamatory content, which was also shared on social media. The conglomerate sought an ex parte interim injunction, claiming that “defamatory articles/tweets may possibly be circulated/shared/re-tweeted causing further loss of reputation to the plaintiff [Adani].”
After considering the arguments, the court concluded that the case satisfied the three-fold test for granting ex parte interim relief: a prima facie case in the plaintiff’s favour, the “balance of convenience” favouring the plaintiff, and the risk of irreparable injury if the injunction was not granted.
However, while upholding the constitutionally guaranteed freedom of speech, Judge Singh ruled against a blanket ban.
“It would suffice the interest of justice to restrain defendants no. 1 to 10 from publishing/ distributing/ circulating unverified, unsubstantiated and ex-facie defamatory reports about the plaintiff allegedly tarnishing the reputation of the plaintiff till the next date of hearing,” the order stated, reported Bar and Bench.
The defendants were also directed to remove material from their articles or posts “to the extent that [they] are incorrect and unverified and prima facie defamatory.”
The ruling comes in the context of the Supreme Court’s March 2024 judgment, which cautioned against mechanical application of the three-fold test in defamation suits, especially where journalistic work is involved.
The apex court had warned that such cases often go “to the detriment of the public” and highlighted the increasing misuse of SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation) suits by powerful entities to suppress media and civil society voices.
“The grant of an interim injunction, before the trial commences, often acts as a ‘death sentence’ to the material sought to be published, well before the allegations have been proven,” the Supreme Court had observed.
The current order appears to walk a fine line, aiming to balance Adani Enterprises’ concerns over alleged defamation with the constitutional right to free expression.
Comments (0)
Leave a Comment