Delhi court declines urgent hearing on Adani gag order, journalists decry takedown notices

On September 17, 2025, a Delhi Court rejected a precautionary measure that prevented the publication of journalist Paranjoy Guha Thakurta’s adani Enterprises Limited (AEL).

Rohini Court of the Regional Judge Raqesh Kumar Singh, September 6, the issue of precautionary measures will be taken on September 18, he said. “It will be heard at 10 morning tomorrow,” he said.

“If your client does not publish for two days? Is this a matter of life and death?” The court rejected the allegation of an emergency hearing.

Senior lawyer Trudeep Pais, who appeared for Mr. Thakurta, argued that the precautionary measure was extremely large and was published without hearing Mr. Thakurta. “The court did not show which material is wrong or slander.

Senior lawyer Anurag Ahluwalia, representing Ael, opposed a normal hearing and said it was not an extraordinary situation to leave the normal program.

Mr. Thakurta, journalists Ravi Nair, Abir Dasgupta, Ayaskand Das and Ayush Joshi challenged September 6 unilateral Temporary measure in favor of AEL, the defendants passed the application.

Special Civil Judge Anuj Kumar Singh, nine journalists, activists and assets Ael Ael “not confirmed, unfounded and old disaster slander” reports or restricting the circulation, and led to the abolition of this content within five days. The order also allowed the company, intermediaries and platforms to determine the additional online material that they should be downloaded within 36 hours.

The precautionary measure was passed in a case of insulting by AEL, which claimed that it was published to damage the reputation of the “coordinated slander” content and disrupt global business operations. However, the court said that it did not give a blanket restriction on “fair, verified and verified” reporting.

“… In this stage, instead of giving a blanket order to restrict the defendants 1 to 9 from fair, verified and verified reporting, and from the publication/circulating of such articles/poles/urls, the abandoned, abandoned, abandoned, circulating slanders to be able to restrict the circulation/disintegration/circulation. (Ubstantifif)

In their objections, journalists have claimed that the court has exceeded a restriction ordered which covers information and everything without determining which content is slander.

On Tuesday, September 16, 2025, the Ministry of Information and Publication referring to the September 6 decision, led several news organizations and independent journalists to remove the alleged slander about AEL. Notifications discussed 138 Youtube connection and 83 Instagram shipments, including research reports of the Adani group, satirical videos and random lyrics. Including the removal notifications from the publication News– Wired– HW NewsRavish Kumar, Ajit Anjum, Mr Thakurta, Dhruv Rathee and Satirist Akash Bannerjee. Copies of the notification were also sent to Meta and Google, and information technology (intermediate instructions and digital media ethics code) rules were given responsibility as intermediaries to act in 2021.

‘Notification was not given’

Several journalists and content -creators who received removal notifications from the publication criticized the order as enjoyable and extreme. Journalist Deepak Sharma wrote that 11 of the videos of the Rohini court in X were directed to the removal without any notification. The Minister pointed out that the order on September 6 was conveyed only on September 16 after 9 September. “A court can send you a decision through e -mail without notifying you, without hearing you? Can you ask you to delete all the videos about Adani in just a few hours … If we don’t delete these videos, youtube will erase themselves through the system.

With more than six million subscribers, the Youtube channel ‘Deshbhakt’ channel running Still Akash Bannerjee, without the opportunity to object to the order to remove more than 200 content for 36 hours, he said. Biri One of the richest, most powerful and well -linked businessmen in the world is to fight small independent YouTubers. A man with one of India’s largest media holdings, a camera broadcasting from a room to discover that news content creators have something that money cannot buy. Yaz he wrote.

On Wednesday, the Indian Editors Guild said he was “deeply worried about John Doe .. unilateral Customation of the risk of weakening the fundamental right of the legitimate reporting and freedom of expression and expression. He added that the next action taken by the Ministry of I & B in the publication of the publication of the publication of the publication, giving a special company powers to determine what creates a slander content about their work ”. In addition, he called on the judiciary to ensure that insulting allegations are handled through the necessary process, not “unilateral precautionary measures”.

‘Censorship before the trial’

In March 2024, the Supreme Court marked the increasing tendency of wealthy plaintiffs who gained determined measures against the media and civil society, and effectively alleviated the right to free speech and the public. At that time, three dominant bench led by India’s chief justice Dy Chandrachud warned this unilateral Usually mechanically given intermediate measures, even before proved allegations, a “death penalty için for journalism studies may syllable.

“The constitutional authority of the protection of journalism can not be plain, and the courts should carefully print as they give temporary precautionary measures before the trial,” he observed. unilateral,Name Temporary The order of a Delhi Regional Court in March 2024, which led the abolition of an article from the online platform.

Senior Lawyer Sanjay Hedge Hindu This unilateral The precautionary measure could not perform a three-fold test for any temporary relaxation. Prima Facie The situation, comfort balance and irreparable loss or damage. “GAG order means an almost empty control for censorship by the order of a commercial company. It is disappointed in pre -censorship and brings deeply uncomfortable questions for free speech in India without the government’s special judicial aspects,” he said.

Published – 17 September 2025 10:53 pm ist