New Delhi, September 18, 2025 – The Rohini District Court has quashed an ex-parte interim injunction issued on September 6 by a lower court, which had restrained journalists from publishing allegedly defamatory content about the Adani Group. District Judge Ashish Aggarwal allowed an appeal filed by four journalists—Ravi Nair, Abir Dasgupta, Ayaskant Das, and Ayush Joshi—ruling that the original order was unsustainable due to the lack of a hearing opportunity for the defendants.
Judge Aggarwal observed that the articles and posts in question had been in the public domain for a substantial period, and the civil judge should have granted the journalists a chance to be heard before directing their removal. “While articles and posts spanning a substantial period were questioned by the plaintiff through the suit, the court didn’t deem it fit to grant opportunity of hearing to defendants before passing the impugned order,” the judge stated. He emphasized that without a hearing, declaring the content defamatory and ordering takedowns was premature, and restoration of removed material would be infeasible if later found non-defamatory.
The judge set aside the order without commenting on the merits of the case, noting that the trial court should decide after affording the defendants a hearing. Notably, another judge in the same court has reserved judgment on journalist Paranjoy Guha Thakurta’s similar appeal against the gag order.
Advocate Vrinda Grover, representing the four journalists, argued that most impugned publications dated back to June 2024, with no emergent circumstances justifying the “extraordinary and exceptional relief” of an ex-parte injunction months later. “Why the rush? Why no notice could have been given to us for two days? Majority of publications are from June 2024 onwards. How have they explained the delay is their burden,” Grover contended. She criticized the lack of reasoning for deeming the articles unverified or defamatory, citing examples based on official Kenyan government statements and Swiss judgments.
Grover further described the order as a “blanket John Doe” injunction, leading to the removal of hundreds of videos and posts, including satirical content. “Is there any law in this country which can ask anyone, particularly the press, that you won’t write or question any entity? That is not what the law allows. Tsunami orders of takedown already happened… Would the heavens have fallen if notice had been given to me?” she submitted, underscoring the impact on freedom of speech and expression.
In response to Adani Enterprises’ counsel Vijay Aggarwal’s justification of the urgency—citing a recent August podcast share and ongoing “republications” via likes and retweets—the court orally queried, “Can you tell me what was the hurry that the order had to be passed?” Aggarwal argued it was a strategic campaign by the journalists, who are under NIA probe for alleged Chinese funding, and that ex-parte orders are legally recognized under Order 39 Rule 4 of the CPC. He noted the Supreme Court’s clearance of Adani in the Hindenburg report context and claimed the articles lacked details on favoritism allegations.
Grover also challenged Adani Enterprises’ locus standi, pointing out that Gautam Adani himself was not a party to the suit, questioning the company’s right to sue on his behalf.
The journalists were represented by advocates Vrinda Grover and Nakul Gandhi.
