Delhi Court Denies Interim Relief to Newslaundry in Adani Gag Order Appeal, Cites 'John Doe' Complexity

New Delhi – In a significant development in the ongoing legal battle between Adani Enterprises Limited (AEL) and several media entities, a Delhi court has declined to grant interim relief to digital news platform Newslaundry in its appeal against a broad gag order. The case, which revolves around a defamation suit filed by the corporate giant, has become a focal point for discussions on press freedom, corporate litigation strategy, and the expansive reach of "John Doe" injunctions.

District Judge Sunil Chaudhary of the Rohini Court, while refusing to stay the gag order's application to Newslaundry , raised crucial questions about the platform's legal standing as an "aggrieved party," given it was not explicitly named in the original suit. The court has listed the matter for October 15, directing AEL to file its formal reply to the appeal. Simultaneously, the court has reserved its order on a similar plea for interim relief filed by veteran journalist Paranjoy Guha Thakurta.

The proceedings have been marked by intricate procedural debates, including a jurisdictional shuffle that saw the case reassigned back to Judge Chaudhary after he initially suggested a different judge should hear it.

Background: The Defamation Suit and the Sweeping Injunction

The legal dispute stems from a defamation suit filed by Adani Enterprises, which alleged that a series of articles and reports published by journalists and on various websites had caused "massive loss to its image, brand equity and credibility." AEL argued that the publications, found on platforms like paranjoy.in and adaniwatch.org, were part of a coordinated effort by entities "aligned with anti-India interests" to disrupt critical infrastructure projects.

On September 6, Senior Civil Judge Anuj Kumar Singh found that AEL had established a prima facie case and granted an ex-parte interim injunction. The order was twofold: it directed the removal of existing allegedly defamatory content and restrained the named journalists—and, critically, unnamed "John Doe" defendants—from publishing further "unverified and defamatory" information about the company.

This sweeping injunction prompted immediate appeals from Newslaundry , Thakurta, and four other journalists: Ravi Nair, Abir Dasgupta, Ayaskant Das, and Ayush Joshi. In a partial victory for the press, District Judge Ashish Aggarwal on September 18 allowed the appeal filed by the latter four journalists, lifting the stay order against them.

The Jurisdictional Tussle

The appeals of Newslaundry and Thakurta landed before District Judge Sunil Chaudhary. Observing that Judge Aggarwal had already dealt with the substantive issues in the related appeal, Judge Chaudhary initially opined that it would be appropriate for Judge Aggarwal to hear these matters as well to maintain judicial consistency.

This led to the case being presented before the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Gurvinder Pal Singh, for a formal transfer. However, in an unexpected turn, counsel for Adani Enterprises, Advocate Vijay Aggarwal, opposed the transfer. Subsequently, counsel for Newslaundry and Thakurta also stated they had no objection to Judge Chaudhary hearing the case.

Principal District and Sessions Judge Singh ultimately ruled that the matter should return to Judge Chaudhary's court. In his order, he noted, "The extensive arguments having been heard by District Judge 4 (Judge Chaudhary), it would be expedient in the interest of justice that the adjudication of the appeal may be appropriately done as per law by the court of DJ to which the case has been assigned." This decision solidified Judge Chaudhary’s role in adjudicating these high-stakes appeals.

Newslaundry's Appeal: The John Doe Conundrum

During Wednesday's hearing, Judge Chaudhary focused on a fundamental legal question: how was Newslaundry , an unnamed party in the original suit, directly affected by the court's order? The court observed that Newslaundry could not be considered an aggrieved party in the traditional sense.

Newslaundry’s counsel argued that the "John Doe" nature of the injunction made it applicable to unknown or unnamed entities, thereby directly impacting the platform. The lawyer explained that YouTube, acting in compliance with the court order, had indicated that Newslaundry's videos must be taken down.

Judge Chaudhary probed this line of argument, suggesting that if an intermediary like YouTube removes content, Newslaundry's legal remedy would be to challenge that specific action separately. "Directions have been issued to intermediaries. If an intermediary removes the videos, then you have the remedy," he remarked.

The court questioned whether AEL had formally written to YouTube to request the takedown, implying that the chain of causation and the right to reply needed to be clearly established before interim relief could be considered. Ultimately, Judge Chaudhary declined to pass any interim direction in favour of Newslaundry and scheduled the next hearing for October 15 to allow AEL to file its response.

Thakurta’s Appeal and the Question of Precedent

In the parallel appeal by Paranjoy Guha Thakurta, AEL’s counsel argued that the earlier order by Judge Aggarwal, which provided relief to four other journalists, was not binding on Judge Chaudhary's court. "I am saying the order passed by Judge Aggarwal setting aside the direction qua four journalists is not binding on this court," Senior Advocate Jagdeep Sharma stated.

However, Sharma gave an undertaking that AEL would not pursue coercive measures, such as contempt proceedings, against Thakurta until the application for interim relief is decided by the Senior Civil Judge.

Advocate Apar Gupta, representing Thakurta, contended that the articles in question were co-authored with other defendants who had already been granted relief, creating a logically inconsistent situation. He argued that a full hearing had already taken place before the Principal District Judge and that if the court granted relief, he could restore the articles that had already been taken down.

Despite these arguments, Judge Chaudhary made it clear that his court was not bound by the findings of a coordinate bench. "This court is not bound by that court's order," he stated, referring to Judge Aggarwal’s decision. The court has reserved its order on Thakurta's plea for interim relief.

Legal Implications and What Lies Ahead

This case highlights the growing use of strategic lawsuits, particularly defamation claims coupled with broad "John Doe" injunctions, by corporations against media entities. For legal practitioners, the court's skepticism towards granting Newslaundry the status of an "aggrieved party" is a critical point. It underscores the challenges faced by organizations that are not explicitly named but are affected by the wide net cast by a John Doe order.

The refusal of interim relief means the gag order remains operative against Newslaundry and Thakurta for now. The upcoming hearings will be closely watched, as the court's final decision on their appeals will have significant implications for media law, the interpretation of civil procedure concerning unnamed defendants, and the delicate balance between protecting corporate reputation and upholding the constitutional right to freedom of speech and expression.