Newslaundry Challenges MIB's Adani Takedown Order in Delhi HC, Citing "Administrative Overreach" and Violation of IT Act

New Delhi – Digital news platform Newslaundry has initiated a significant legal battle in the Delhi High Court, challenging a directive from the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting (MIB) that ordered the removal of multiple reports and videos concerning the Adani Group. The writ petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, argues that the MIB’s action represents an "inherently arbitrary exercise of executive power" and a breach of the separation of powers, setting the stage for a critical examination of the government's role in enforcing civil court orders against non-parties.

The case, Newslaundry v. Union of India , was listed before Justice Sachin Datta on Friday but was adjourned to Monday, September 22, 2025, without being heard. The petition contests a communication dated September 16, 2025, wherein the MIB directed Newslaundry and numerous other independent journalists and content creators—including Dhruv Rathee, Ravish Kumar, and Paranjoy Guha Thakurta—to "take appropriate action" to comply with an ex-parte order from a Delhi civil court.

The controversy stems from a civil defamation suit filed by Adani Enterprises Limited (AEL) against specific journalists. On September 6, the Rohini District Court passed an ex-parte injunction restraining the defendants from publishing allegedly defamatory and unverified content. The order, which also encompassed "John Doe" defendants, directed intermediaries to remove specified content within 36 hours upon being furnished with the order by the plaintiff.

The MIB subsequently issued its directive to a wide array of digital publishers, citing the civil court's order. However, Newslaundry’s petition forcefully contends that this executive intervention into a private civil dispute is constitutionally and statutorily impermissible.

Grounds of Challenge: Separation of Powers and Procedural Lapses

Newslaundry's primary legal argument centers on the principle of separation of powers. The petition asserts that the MIB has no legal basis to act as an enforcement arm for a civil court order, particularly one arising from a dispute between private entities.

"The Impugned Order has no legal, statutory and/or constitutional basis in the first place. The government cannot seek compliance with court orders in complete violation of the principles of separation of powers," the petitioner stated.

This argument posits that the MIB’s directive constitutes "administrative overreach" by conflating a judicial pronouncement with an executive command. The platform argues it was never a party to the original civil suit and that none of the content specified in the court's order was published by them. They claim to have been made aware of the judicial order only through the MIB's communication, raising serious concerns about due process.

Furthermore, the petition highlights significant procedural illegalities under the Information Technology (IT) Act, 2000, and its accompanying rules. Newslaundry contends the MIB's directive violates the framework of Section 69A of the IT Act, which governs the blocking of online content. Key arguments include: 1. Improper Authority: The directive was not issued by an officer of the rank of Joint Secretary, as mandated by Section 69A. 2. Non-Compliance with Blocking Rules: The procedure laid out in the Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking for Access of Information by Public) Rules, 2009, which includes the formation of a committee and an opportunity for the publisher to be heard, was allegedly not followed.

This dual-pronged attack—challenging both the constitutional validity of the MIB's action and its non-compliance with statutory procedure—forms the core of Newslaundry's legal strategy.

Overbreadth and Disproportionality of the Directive

A crucial aspect of the challenge is the alleged overbreadth and disproportionality of the MIB's takedown order. The civil court's injunction was specifically aimed at "defamatory" and "incorrect reports." Newslaundry argues that the MIB, without any independent determination of this fact, issued a blanket directive that went far beyond the court's intended scope.

The petition provides concrete examples of this overreach. One YouTube link cited in the MIB's notice was for an interview with political leader Aditya Thackeray, which reportedly contained no reference to the Adani Group whatsoever. Another video was targeted merely because its description mentioned that Adani’s Dharavi slum development project was "controversial"—an assertion the platform argues is a matter of public record and fair comment, not defamation.

This highlights a critical legal question: Can a government ministry, acting on a civil court order, unilaterally decide which content falls under the ambit of "defamatory" and order its removal without judicial scrutiny or adherence to established procedures? Newslaundry argues this action is excessive and creates a chilling effect on legitimate journalism and public discourse.

Broader Context: Appellate Relief and Scrutiny of Gag Orders

The legal environment surrounding the original civil court order is already shifting. In a significant related development, an appellate court in Delhi on Thursday set aside the Rohini trial court’s sweeping ex-parte order as it pertained to four other journalists—Ravi Nair, Abir Dasgupta, Ayaskant Das, and Ayush Joshi.

The appellate court held that such broad pre-publication restrictions were "legally unsustainable." The judge also noted the dangerous implications of the order, remarking that it effectively empowered the plaintiff to approach intermediaries for removal of any material it deemed defamatory. The court observed, "An incorrect determination by intermediaries would bring those who have not complied with it in the teeth of contempt." While this appellate relief is currently limited to the four appellants, it provides strong persuasive precedent for Newslaundry’s case, underscoring judicial skepticism towards overbroad gag orders in defamation suits.

An appeal by senior journalist Paranjoy Guha Thakurta, a defendant in the original suit, is pending before another judge, with the order reserved.

Implications for Media Law and Executive Power

This case is poised to become a landmark ruling on the intersection of media freedom, defamation law, and the executive's powers under the IT Act. Legal experts are watching closely, as the Delhi High Court's decision will have far-reaching implications for: * The Role of Government in Private Disputes: The verdict will clarify whether a government ministry can proactively enforce civil court injunctions, especially against non-parties. A ruling against the MIB would reinforce the separation of powers and limit executive interference in civil matters. * Procedural Safeguards under the IT Act: The court's interpretation of Section 69A and the 2009 Blocking Rules will be critical. If Newslaundry's arguments are accepted, it will reaffirm that the government must strictly adhere to statutory procedures before ordering content removal. * The Use of 'John Doe' Orders against Media: The case will test the application of broad 'John Doe' or 'Ashok Kumar' orders against the media, questioning whether such instruments can be used to silence reporting from publishers not named in a suit. * Press Freedom: Ultimately, the outcome will impact the ability of corporate entities to use a combination of civil litigation and government directives to manage public narrative and stifle critical scrutiny.

As the matter heads for its hearing on Monday, the legal community and media organizations await a judgment that could redefine the boundaries of executive authority and protect the space for independent journalism in the digital age.