Delhi Courts Scrutinize Free Speech and Evidence Fabrication in High-Profile Cases - 2025-09-25

Delhi Courts Under Spotlight in Cases Testing Press Freedom and Evidence Integrity

New Delhi – The capital's district courts are currently the focal point of two significant legal battles with profound implications for constitutional freedoms and the criminal justice system. In separate hearings, judges are weighing the validity of a pre-emptive gag order against a journalist in a high-stakes corporate defamation suit, while another court is scrutinizing serious allegations of evidence fabrication by the Delhi Police in the 2020 riots conspiracy case.

These proceedings, involving journalist Paranjoy Guha Thakurta against Adani Enterprises and arguments against framing charges for activist Umar Khalid, highlight the judiciary's critical role in safeguarding the rights to free speech and a fair trial against the powers of corporate entities and the state.

Gag Order on Adani Reporting: A Judicial Tug-of-War

In a case that pits journalistic freedom against corporate reputation, District Judge Sunil Chaudhary of Delhi's Rohini Court has reserved his verdict on an appeal filed by veteran journalist Paranjoy Guha Thakurta. The appeal challenges an ex-parte injunction restraining him from reporting on Adani Enterprises. The hearing has been marked by significant procedural twists, underscoring the complexities of interim relief in defamation cases.

The matter saw a dramatic turn when Judge Chaudhary initially recused himself from passing an order, despite extensive hearings. This recusal was prompted by a parallel order from District Judge Ashish Aggarwal, who had quashed a similar gag order against four other journalists in the same matter. In his ruling, Judge Aggarwal had pointedly observed that the allegedly defamatory articles had been in the public domain for a considerable time, suggesting that the civil judge should have afforded the journalists a hearing before ordering a takedown.

Following a refusal by the Principal District and Sessions Judge to transfer the case, the appeal was relisted before Judge Chaudhary. Representing Adani Enterprises, Senior Advocate Jagdeep Sharma argued that Judge Aggarwal's order was not binding as it did not delve into the merits of the defamation claim. "The other court can't impose its views on your lordships," he contended, urging the court to direct Thakurta to seek remedies before the senior civil judge who initially passed the ex-parte order. As a temporary measure, Sharma undertook that no coercive steps would be taken against the journalist until Friday.

However, Advocate Apar Gupta, counsel for Guha Thakurta, countered that coercive actions had already commenced based on the contested order. He emphasized the immediate impact of the injunction, stating, "If the ex parte order is stayed today, I'll be able to get the articles restored." The court's impending decision is now keenly awaited, as it will serve as a crucial test for the threshold required to grant ex-parte gag orders against media publications, particularly on content that has long been publicly accessible.

Umar Khalid Case: Counsel Alleges Widespread Evidence Fabrication in Riots Probe

In the Karkardooma Courts, the proceedings against former JNU scholar Umar Khalid under the stringent Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) have brought sharp allegations of systemic misconduct by the Delhi Police to the forefront. While arguing against the framing of charges in the FIR 59/2020 "larger conspiracy" case, Senior Advocate Trideep Pais presented a compelling argument centered on what he described as judicial findings of evidence fabrication in related riots cases.

Pais informed Additional Sessions Judge Sameer Bajpai that out of 93 acquittals in the 2020 Delhi riots cases, trial courts in 17 of those judgments have explicitly concluded that the prosecution's case was marred by fabricated evidence and the use of "imaginary witnesses." He argued this pattern of conduct by the investigating agency casts a long shadow over the credibility of the chargesheet against Khalid.

“As of now out of the 750 cases to my knowledge, there have been 93 acquittals. And in 17 of those cases, the sessions judges have concluded that there has been fabrication of evidence, imaginary witnesses and lack of any basis,” Pais submitted to the court.

He meticulously dissected the prosecution's narrative, questioning the very foundation of the conspiracy charge. Pais pointed out that key individuals who were allegedly part of the Delhi Protest Support Group (DPSG) and central to the police's theory of "connectivity" with Khalid have not been named as co-accused in the UAPA case. “If I have connectivity, why on earth they are not accused with me? And if they are not accused, why am I?” he posited, highlighting a fundamental flaw in the prosecution's logic.

Describing the chargesheet as an expression of police opinion rather than a presentation of legally tenable evidence, Pais remarked, "This chargesheet does not point at the guilt. It points at the opinion the police has. Some kind of storytelling." He further argued that some witnesses against Khalid "miraculously appear" six to eight months after his arrest, raising serious doubts about their veracity.

Khalid, arrested on September 13, 2020, has been in custody for over four years. While the Delhi High Court previously denied him bail, observing a prima facie "grave" role in the alleged conspiracy, his counsel's current arguments before the trial court directly challenge the evidentiary basis required to even proceed to trial. The matter is scheduled for its next hearing on October 8, where these critical questions concerning the integrity of the investigation will be further examined.