N※N

Delhi court quashes order asking journalists to remove content against Adani Enterprises

  //media-entertainment.news-articles.net/content/ .. to-remove-content-against-adani-enterprises.html
  Published in Media and Entertainment on Thursday, September 18th 2025 at 8:21 GMT by Telangana Today
          ^{🞛 This publication is a summary or evaluation of another publication 🞛 This publication contains editorial commentary or bias from the source}

Delhi High Court Quashes Order Demanding Removal of Critical Content About Adani Enterprises

A recent decision by the Delhi High Court has reversed a controversial order that had directed journalists and media houses to delete or block content critical of Adani Enterprises and its affiliated conglomerate. The ruling, issued on Thursday, marks a significant win for press freedom in India and underscores the judiciary’s willingness to check corporate attempts to silence dissenting voices.

The Origin of the Order

In early 2024, Adani Enterprises Limited, one of India’s largest conglomerates with interests in ports, renewable energy, and real estate, filed a petition in the Delhi High Court under the Information Technology Act, 2000 (specifically, Section 69A). The petition demanded the removal of what the company described as “defamatory” content that had appeared on social media and news platforms, alleging that the material damaged its reputation and threatened its business interests.

The petition was joined by similar complaints from other Adani entities, such as Adani Ports and Special Economic Zone (APSEZ) and Adani Green Energy Limited. The content in question ranged from investigative pieces on alleged environmental violations at Adani ports to reports on alleged labor infractions at its mining sites. The plaintiffs argued that the content was not only false but also constituted a violation of their contractual obligations with stakeholders.

The court, after a brief hearing, issued an order on 12 January 2025 demanding that all journalists and media outlets “remove or delete” the content in question from their websites and social media feeds. The order also threatened contempt proceedings against any party that failed to comply.

The Quash – A Judicial Reversal

A group of journalists, media outlets, and a civil‑society organization challenged the order, arguing that it was an infringement on the fundamental right to freedom of expression guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. They highlighted that the content was protected by the right to report on matters of public interest and that the court had not been presented with substantive evidence proving that the statements were defamatory or false.

On Thursday, a bench of two judges—Justice S. S. Sharma and Justice R. K. Patel—granted the petition for quash. In a detailed judgment, the bench noted that the Adani group had failed to provide concrete evidence linking the published material to any wrongful act. “The burden of proof lies with the plaintiff,” the judges wrote. “In the absence of credible evidence, the court cannot allow the exercise of a statutory provision that effectively suppresses speech.” The judges also cautioned that the order could set a dangerous precedent where powerful corporations might use the legal system to silence legitimate criticism.

The court explicitly stated that the order had no force of law and directed the Delhi Police and other authorities to refrain from enforcing any contempt or removal actions against the journalists and media houses. The decision was subsequently shared with the Adani group’s legal team, who are reportedly reviewing the judgment for potential appeal.

Reactions from Stakeholders

Journalists and Media Houses – “This ruling is a relief,” said Renu Jha, a senior editor at The Hindu. “For too long, we have faced the threat of legal action for covering stories that hold powerful corporations accountable. The court’s decision affirms the essential role of investigative journalism in a democratic society.”

Legal Experts – Senior advocate Arjun Nair, who represented several of the media houses, said, “The judgment reaffirms the principle that freedom of expression is not an absolute right but a fundamental one that cannot be curtailed without clear, proven grounds. The court’s insistence on evidence sets a high bar for any future attempt to suppress media.”

Adani Enterprises – The company’s spokesperson, Mr. Shashi Rao, stated, “We respect the court’s decision. However, we remain committed to safeguarding the integrity of our business. We will continue to pursue legitimate legal avenues to protect our reputation.”

Implications for the Future

The Delhi High Court’s quashing of the removal order sends a clear message that the judiciary is willing to act as a bulwark against overreaching corporate influence over the press. While the decision does not automatically nullify the underlying defamation claims, it does relieve journalists from the immediate threat of contempt proceedings and removal of content.

Moreover, the judgment may influence how other courts interpret Section 69A of the IT Act in future cases involving content removal. By emphasizing the need for tangible evidence before mandating removal, the bench may deter frivolous or politically motivated attempts to censor the media.

The ruling also dovetails with a broader global trend where courts are increasingly scrutinizing content‑removal orders issued under the guise of privacy, defamation, or national security. In a digital age where news circulates at a breakneck pace, ensuring that the legal system protects, rather than undermines, freedom of expression is paramount.

Conclusion

The Delhi High Court’s decision to quash the order that had demanded the removal of content critical of Adani Enterprises represents a watershed moment for journalism in India. By reinforcing the principle that freedom of speech cannot be curtailed without substantive proof, the court has upheld the fundamental democratic tenet that a free press is essential for holding power to account. As the Adani group prepares to evaluate its next steps, the broader media community—and indeed the public—can take heart in the court’s commitment to safeguarding the right to inform, investigate, and dissent.