The battle between the Adani Group and a group of investigative journalists took a dramatic turn on September 18, 2025, when two Delhi District Judges dealt with appeals against a sweeping ex-parte gag order passed earlier this month.
While District Judge Ashish Aggarwal quashed the gag order as it applied to four journalists — Ravi Nair, Abir Dasgupta, Ayaskant Das, and Ayush Joshi — another bench led by District Judge Sunil Chaudhary heard and reserved judgment on a similar appeal filed by Paranjoy Guha Thakurta.
The result is a split: four journalists regain freedom to publish, while Guha — a veteran journalist who has consistently reported on the Adani Group — as well as John Doe (the rest of the un-named world) remains gagged until his appeal is decided.
The September 6 Gag Order: A blanket injunction
On September 6, 2025, Special Senior Civil Judge Anuj Kumar Singh (Rohini Courts) passed an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favour of Adani Enterprises Ltd. (AEL). The order targeted both journalists, including Paranjoy Guha Thakurta, Ravi Nair, Abir Dasgupta, Ayaskant Das, Ayush Joshi, and websites such as pranjoy.in, adaniwatch.org, adanifiles.com.au.
Findings: The judge recorded that reports were “incorrect, unverified, and prima facie defamatory.”
Directions:
- Journalists restrained from “publishing/distributing/circulating unverified, unsubstantiated and ex-facie defamatory reports” about Adani Enterprises.
- Ordered to expunge defamatory material from articles, social media posts, and tweets, or remove them entirely within five days.
- Intermediaries required, under IT Rules 2021, to disable access to flagged content within 36 hours, while preserving records for 180 days.
- Liberty to Adani to supply links/URLs of allegedly defamatory material to intermediaries for direct takedown.
- Scope extended to future publications, allowing the plaintiff to identify and seek removal of material not yet published.
While the order claimed to respect Article 19(1)(a) by allowing “fair, verified reporting,” its net effect was a blanket, John Doe–style injunction that outsourced censorship to the plaintiff and intermediaries, effectively criminalising future criticism.
The complete order may be read here.
Appeal of Ravi Nair and Others: Submissions and relief
The four journalists — Nair, Dasgupta, Das, and Joshi — appealed before District Judge Ashish Aggarwal (MCA No. DJ/30/2025).
Submissions by the journalists: Appearing for them, Advocate Vrinda Grover, assisted by Nakul Gandhi, Soutik Banerjee, and Devika Tulsiani, made the following arguments:
- No urgency: Most of the impugned publications were already in the public domain since June 2024. The plaintiff waited over a year and then sought an “extraordinary and exceptional relief” ex-parte.
- Lack of reasoning: The trial court had provided no reasoning for branding the reports as “unverified” or “defamatory.” Many articles relied on official material, including:
- Statements by the Kenyan government, and
- A Swiss judgment.
- Blanket injunction: The gag was a “John Doe order” extending to hundreds of videos and posts, and even to future material.
- Freedom of the press: Grover reminded the court that the press acts as the vehicle for citizens’ right to free expression.
- Locus questioned: Since some articles dealt with Gautam Adani personally, Grover argued that AEL had no locus to sue on his behalf, especially as Gautam Adani himself had not approached the court.
Submissions by Adani Enterprises: Represented by Senior Advocate Jagdeep Sharma and Advocate Vijay Aggarwal, Adani argued:
- The journalists were conducting a deliberate campaign of malicious targeting.
- Every retweet, like, or republication amounted to fresh defamation, justifying urgent relief.
- The suit was prompted by a podcast in August 2025 that allegedly reignited circulation of defamatory content.
- The ex-parte order was lawful under CPC, and the defendants could have approached the trial court under Order 39 Rule 4 to vacate it.
- Journalists were allegedly under NIA probe for Chinese funding, questioning their credibility.
Judge Aggarwal’s findings: After hearing both sides, Judge Aggarwal quashed the September 6 gag order as it applied to the four appellants.
Key reasoning:
- Violation of natural justice: The Judge held that unless the appellants are heard, it is not open to the court to infer that they have made unverified, inaccurate and irresponsible statements.
- Chilling effect:
- The order stated that by extending to future articles, the injunction created a “sword hanging over” journalists, exposing them to contempt without prior adjudication.
- Intermediaries were left to decide what was defamatory, a function reserved for the courts.
- Irreversible harm: As per the judge, the effect of removal of the articles by an ad interim ex-parte order is sweeping and has the effect of decreeing the suit itself without a trial because the articles cannot be restored.
- Procedural Breach:
- The trial court fixed the next date for October 9 — outside the 30-day limit in Order 39 Rule 3A CPC for adjudicating interim injunctions.
- By doing so, it “disempowered itself”.
Order: The September 6 gag order was set aside insofar as the four appellants are concerned. The matter was remitted to the trial court to hear both parties afresh on September 26 and decide by October 15. Importantly, the judge clarified that no finding on merits was being made.
The complete order may be read here.
The Guha Appeal: Submissions and status
Separately, Paranjoy Guha Thakurta — also a defendant in the September 6 order — filed an appeal before District Judge Sunil Chaudhary.
Guha’s arguments (via Sr. Adv. Trideep Pais, Advocates Apar Gupta & team):
- The injunction was overbroad, covering even Adani Group companies not party to the suit.
- The trial court failed to identify which parts of his articles were defamatory, issuing a blanket restraint.
- Many articles were old (2017, 2023), making the plea of urgency untenable.
- The injunction outsourced censorship to intermediaries, leaving the plaintiff to decide what was defamatory.
- Guha had material to substantiate his reporting, but was denied an opportunity to present it.
Adani’s response (via Sr. Advs. Anurag Ahluwalia, Jagdeep Sharma, Vijay Aggarwal):
- Guha had engaged in a persistent campaign of vilification.
- Articles likening Adani to Elon Musk and suggesting Modi promoted him abroad were defamatory per se.
- Allegations of scams were made without evidence, harming market reputation.
- Reliance placed on the Supreme Court’s clean chit in the Hindenburg matter.
Court: District Judge Sunil Chaudhary reserved verdict on Guha’s appeal. Until then, the gag order remains operative against him.
Defamation as a weapon
The Adani gag order litigation illustrates, in stark terms, how defamation law can be converted from a protective remedy into a powerful weapon of silencing. Both the trial court’s September 6 injunction and the fragmented relief granted on appeal show how civil defamation proceedings, especially when combined with ex-parte interim orders, can become tools of censorship rather than adjudication.
- Fragmented outcomes: The September 6 gag order was sweeping in scope, binding multiple journalists and even websites in one stroke. Yet when appeals were filed, the outcome splintered: Judge Ashish Aggarwal quashed the injunction for four journalists — Ravi Nair, Abir Dasgupta, Ayaskant Das, and Ayush Joshi — but Judge Sunil Chaudhary reserved judgment on Paranjoy Guha Thakurta’s appeal, leaving him still gagged. This fragmented relief underscores how procedural happenstance can fracture the landscape of press freedom. For the same order, some are free to write, while others remain restrained, illustrating how defamation litigation can divide journalists and create unequal shields against censorship.
- Blanket nature of the gag: The trial court’s injunction went far beyond restraining specific contested articles. It extended to future publications, empowered Adani Enterprises to directly flag content for takedown, and even covered Adani Group companies not party to the suit. In effect, the court deputised a private corporation to decide what was defamatory, reducing the judiciary to a rubber stamp. This blanket approach transformed defamation from a narrow legal shield into a censorship weapon, undermining both due process and the principle of proportionality in restrictions on speech.
- Chilling effect: Perhaps most insidious was the injunction’s chilling effect. By threatening contempt without prior adjudication, the order created a climate of fear not only among the defendants but across the wider journalistic community. A journalist considering a future report on Adani would know that any critical statement could, at Adani’s discretion, be branded defamatory and removed by intermediaries within 36 hours. This sword of silence deters even legitimate reporting, showing how defamation can be wielded not to correct falsehoods but to prevent scrutiny altogether.
- Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPPs): The case fits the textbook profile of a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP). SLAPPs are not designed to win on legal merits but to impose the process as punishment: draining time, money, and energy of journalists, forcing them into prolonged litigation simply to preserve their right to publish. The September 6 order — sweeping, ex-parte, and extended to future works — exemplifies how corporations can deploy defamation suits as a tool of intimidation, deterring watchdog journalism by turning the courtroom into a battlefield of attrition.
- Appellate vigilance but limited reach: Judge Aggarwal’s ruling offers an important corrective, restoring procedural fairness by emphasising that journalists must be heard before their work is branded defamatory. He noted that once articles are removed, the damage cannot be undone, making ex-parte injunctions equivalent to decreeing the suit itself. Yet his quashing applied only to the four appellants before him. For Guha and others, the gag persists. This limited scope highlights the structural weakness of fragmented relief: while vigilance at the appellate stage is commendable, the chilling effect continues as long as parts of the injunction remain operative. Defamation as a weapon, once unleashed, cannot be fully neutralised by piecemeal judicial correction.
Conclusion
The Adani gag order saga demonstrates how civil defamation, when coupled with ex-parte injunctions, can be weaponised against investigative journalism. The September 6 order was not merely a protective measure; it was a far-reaching censorship tool. The appellate court’s partial quashing restores some balance, but by leaving other journalists still bound, it reveals the vulnerabilities of India’s press to fragmented judicial relief and corporate litigation strategies.
In this sense, the case is more than a private dispute: it is a cautionary tale of how defamation law, if unchecked, can mutate into a mechanism of silencing, punishing those who speak truth to power, and warning others not to even try.
For Ravi Nair and three others, the gag order is gone, at least temporarily. For Paranjoy Guha Thakurta, it still looms, pending judgment.
The episode reveals both the danger of sweeping ex-parte gag orders and the piecemeal nature of appellate relief in India’s courts. Until broader judicial clarity emerges, investigative journalism remains vulnerable to corporate defamation suits wielded as instruments of censorship.
Related:
Supreme Court allows Mahesh Raut six weeks’ medical bail in Bhima Koregaon case
The Conspiracy of Silence: HC denies bail to Delhi riots accused
Not Proscribed, Not Prima Facie: The labyrinth of bail under UAPA