Journalist Ravish Kumar and digital news outlet Newslaundry on Friday arrived at an agreement with Adani Enterprises to maintain status quo in a case about allegedly defamatory content about the company, Bar and Bench reported.
As per the agreement, Newslaundry and Kumar will not have to take down any existing articles, but any material that has been taken down after a civil court order cannot be uploaded again.
The interim arrangement will stay in place until a Delhi court makes a final ruling on Adani Enterprise’s request for an injunction to remove all allegedly defamatory content, the High Court said.
Following this agreement, the High Court on Friday disposed of two writ petitions filed by Newslaundry and Kumar, which had challenged the government’s directive to take down content, Live Law reported.
The matter pertains to a defamation suit filed by Adani Enterprises alleging that journalists, activists and organisations had damaged the company’s reputation and cost its stakeholders billions of dollars. Adani Enterprises is the flagship company of the Adani Group.
Special Civil Judge Anuj Kumar Singh of the Rohini Courts had on September 6 passed an ex parte injunction in favour of the company, directing the defendants to expunge the material from their articles and social media posts. If expunging the content was not feasible, they must remove it within five days, the order said.
An ex parte order is an emergency directive that is passed without hearing the other side in a legal dispute.
The court had clarified that 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 webpage links.
Following this, the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting on September 16 ordered 12 news outlets and independent journalists to take down allegedly defamatory content about Adani Enterprises, citing the Delhi court order.
In its petition before the High Court, Newslaundry contended that its reports did not contain defamatory content, arguing that the government’s communication went beyond the trial court’s original instructions, Bar and Bench reported.
Kumar, in his petition, argued that the government’s order was unconstitutional and represented an unprecedented exercise of executive power.
Also read: India’s richest men get protection against uncomfortable questions
You’ve read Scroll.
Now help sustain it
Scroll is funded by readers, not corporate owners. If you believe our work matters, support our newsroom. Become a member today!
We’re not driven by clicks or corporate interests – just honest, independent reporting. Keep us going. Support Scroll today!