The Calcutta High Court has issued an ad-interim injunction directing the removal of an allegedly defamatory video titled “How Modi and Adani Stole India: The Friendship Files” from various social media platforms. The directive, issued by Justice Aryak Dutt on October 26, 2026, mandates that YouTube, X, and Instagram disable access to the video and its reproductions, marking a significant development in the ongoing legal dispute between Adani Enterprises Limited and the creator of the content, Sabeer Bhatia. The Court’s order, which remains in effect until January 31, 2027, or further notice, highlights the balance between protecting reputation and ensuring the open flow of digital discourse.

The petitioner, Adani Enterprises Limited, approached the Court alleging that the video—a 36-minute production—contained serious and unfounded factual assertions against the company. The company claimed these allegations, which linked it to narcotics smuggling, terror funding, and state-sponsored violence against farmers, were entirely false and severely damaged its corporate image. According to the petition, despite the original YouTube upload being disabled in India following a government complaint under Rule 3(1)(d) of the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, the video continued to proliferate through various re-uploads, reposts, and shares.

Judicial Reasoning and Preliminary Findings

In examining the prima facie case, Justice Aryak Dutt noted that the nature of the video set it apart from standard journalistic reporting. The Court observed that the content functioned as a dramatized narrative rather than an evidence-based report. “The impugned video is not a news report or an account of proceedings. It is a dramatized narrative, whose title expressly imputes theft, and whose narration and visuals are represented as factual,” Justice Dutt remarked.

The Court further emphasized that the imputations regarding the petitioner's involvement in criminal activities were presented as assertions of fact rather than expressions of opinion. Because the respondent had reportedly re-uploaded or allowed the continued circulation of the content after the initial government-mandated removal, the Court concluded that there was a lack of good faith in the dissemination process. The bench determined that the balance of convenience heavily favored the petitioner, as the rapid nature of online content sharing meant that failure to intervene would cause irreparable harm to the company’s reputation that monetary compensation could not rectify.

Enforcing Digital Accountability

The Court’s order imposes specific obligations on the digital intermediaries involved. YouTube, X, and Instagram are required not only to remove the impugned video from the specific URLs provided in the petitioner’s schedule but also to disable engagement features—such as reposts, quote posts, and shares—through which the content remains accessible. Furthermore, the platforms must preserve critical metadata, including subscriber information, registration details, IP logs from the time of upload, and access logs. These records are to be submitted to the Court in a sealed cover to facilitate the identification of unknown parties responsible for the continued circulation of the video.

In addition to the removal of the content, the intermediaries have been strictly prohibited from running or serving advertisements on the identified URLs or sharing revenue generated from the impugned video. Justice Dutt stipulated that platforms must maintain records of all advertising revenue associated with the content until the matter is fully adjudicated. This directive aims to prevent financial incentives from driving the further spread of material deemed defamatory. The Court also ordered the platforms to file affidavits of compliance within two weeks, detailing the specific URLs removed and the timing of their actions.

Scope and Limitations of the Injunction

Addressing concerns regarding the potential chilling effect on free speech, the Court clarified that the injunction is narrowly focused. The order does not target constructive criticism, government policy analysis, or truthful reporting regarding the Adani Group. Instead, the relief is strictly confined to the specific video, its excerpts, and materially identical reproductions that convey the defamatory imputations identified in the petition. “Constructive criticism or truthful reporting on the petitioner or on Government policy, backed by evidence, is not barred,” the Court stated, noting that its observations at this stage are prima facie and subject to review following the filing of affidavits-in-opposition.

The legal proceedings are currently set to continue, with the Court directing the respondents to file their opposition within four weeks. The petitioner has been granted liberty to amend its pleadings should the identity of the unidentified parties responsible for coordinating the circulation of the video be established through the disclosures mandated by the Court. As the case moves toward a formal hearing, the order serves as a reminder of the evolving standards for intermediary liability in cases involving large-scale digital defamation. The current interim order will remain the operative mechanism for controlling the dissemination of the disputed video until the scheduled January 2027 review.