Delhi Court Quashes Adani's Ex-Parte Gag Order Against Journalists, Citing Lack of Hearing

New Delhi – In a significant ruling reinforcing the principles of natural justice and press freedom, a Delhi District Court has quashed an ex-parte interim injunction that restrained four journalists from publishing allegedly defamatory content against Adani Enterprises Limited (AEL). The court held that the lower court's failure to provide the journalists an opportunity to be heard rendered the sweeping gag order unsustainable.

District Judge Ashish Aggarwal of the Rohini Courts delivered the verdict on an appeal filed by journalists Ravi Nair, Abir Dasgupta, Ayaskant Das, and Ayush Joshi. The original order, passed by a Senior Civil Judge on September 6, had not only prohibited future publications but also directed the takedown of existing articles and posts, leading to what the journalists' counsel termed a "tsunami" of content removal.

Setting aside the injunction, Judge Aggarwal critically observed, "While articles and posts spanning a substantial period were questioned by plaintiff through the suit, the court didn't deem it fit to grant opportunity of hearing to defendants before passing impugned order. In my opinion the civil judge ought to have granted that opportunity."

The court's decision, while not delving into the merits of the defamation claims, pivots on the fundamental legal tenet of audi alteram partem (hear the other side). The judge highlighted the irreversible nature of the lower court's directive, stating that if the articles were later found not to be defamatory, their prior removal from the public domain could not be feasibly undone.

"The effect would be in the event of the court of senior civil judge subsequently finding that the articles are not defamatory, after defendants put forth their defence, it is not feasible that articles which have been removed would then be restored," the order noted. "Therefore in my opinion the trial court should have decided the prayers made by plaintiff after giving hearing opportunity to the defendants."

This ruling comes amidst a broader legal battle initiated by AEL against several journalists and media entities. A separate appeal by veteran journalist Paranjoy Guha Thakurta against the same gag order has been heard by another judge, with the verdict currently reserved.

The Anatomy of the Appeal: Key Legal Arguments

During the appellate hearing, the court scrutinized the legal basis and the purported urgency that prompted AEL to seek, and the civil court to grant, such an extraordinary ex-parte remedy.

The Question of Urgency and Delay

Advocate Vrinda Grover, representing the four journalists, mounted a powerful challenge against the necessity of an order passed without notice. She pointed out the significant delay between the publication of the impugned articles, some dating back to June 2024, and the filing of the suit.

"Why the rush? Why no notice could have been given to us for two days?" Grover argued. "Majority of publications are from June 2024 onwards. How have they explained the delay is their burden." She questioned how AEL, which operates a major media house, could claim to have only recently become aware of the articles. The court itself posed a direct question to AEL's counsel: "Can you tell me what was the hurry that the order had to be passed?"

In response, Advocate Vijay Aggarwal, appearing for AEL, cited a recent podcast shared in August and alleged a coordinated "campaign" against the company. "Every tweet, retweet, like amounts to republication. It is happening even now," he submitted, further alleging that the journalists were subjects of a National Investigation Agency (NIA) probe for receiving Chinese funding.

Procedural Propriety and the Scope of the Order

A central pillar of the journalists' appeal was the overbroad and "blanket" nature of the September 6 order. Grover described it as a "John Doe order, in rem, order in future," arguing that it amounted to an unconstitutional pre-publication restraint on the press. "Is there any law in this country which can ask anyone, particularly the press, that you won't write or question any entity in this country?" she contended.

The defense also highlighted that the lower court provided no reasoning for its prima facie conclusion that the articles were "unverified or defamatory." Grover challenged this assumption by pointing to the sources of the articles, including a Swiss judgment and statements from the Kenyan government.

Aggarwal defended the lower court's order by stating that detailed reasoning is not required at the interlocutory stage and that the judge passed the order based on a perusal of the plaint. He also argued that the journalists had an alternative remedy under Order 39 Rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Code to approach the same civil court to vacate the injunction, making the appeal premature.

Locus Standi and the Nature of the Suit

Grover raised a fundamental question regarding the plaintiff's standing to sue. She argued that the articles primarily concerned the individual, Gautam Adani, who was not a party to the suit. "The individual is not before your lords. Does this plaintiff [Adani Enterprises Limited] have a locus in this case is also a question in this appeal," she asserted.

Furthermore, she suggested that the lawsuit was strategically framed as a "suit for declaration" rather than a straightforward defamation case to circumvent the higher burden of proof required to establish malice and falsehood in defamation proceedings. "It is because in defamation you have to discharge the burden of pointing out which material is defamatory or malicious. I have the justification of truth and fair comment," Grover explained.

Legal Implications and the Path Forward

The District Court's decision to quash the gag order is a crucial procedural victory for the journalists and a significant pronouncement on the judicial standards for granting ex-parte injunctions against media.

• Reinforcing Procedural Safeguards: The judgment underscores that even at the interim stage, courts must be circumspect before issuing orders that have free speech implications. The failure to issue notice, especially when the content has been in the public domain for months, was deemed a critical procedural lapse. This serves as a strong precedent against the casual granting of such restrictive orders.

• The High Bar for Pre-Publication Restraint: The ruling implicitly upholds the high threshold required to justify a pre-publication injunction, a remedy considered a drastic interference with the freedom of the press. By setting aside the order, the court has signaled that corporate entities cannot easily obtain judicial sanction to silence critical reporting without a proper hearing.

• Remanding the Matter: While the gag order against the four journalists is lifted, the core defamation suit remains before the Senior Civil Judge. The matter is now remanded to the lower court for a fresh hearing on the injunction application, where both parties will have the opportunity to present their arguments. The court explicitly stated that its decision was "without any finding on the merits of the case," leaving the substantive questions of defamation to be adjudicated after a full hearing.

The legal community will be closely watching the proceedings in both this case and the parallel appeal by Paranjoy Guha Thakurta. The ultimate outcome will have lasting implications for the balance between protecting corporate reputation and safeguarding the constitutionally guaranteed freedom of the press in India.