N※N

Delhi High Court Restrains Activists From Publishing Defamatory Content Against Adani Enterprises

  //media-entertainment.news-articles.net/content/ .. efamatory-content-against-adani-enterprises.html
  Published in Media and Entertainment on Saturday, September 6th 2025 at 21:44 GMT by NDTV
          ^{🞛 This publication is a summary or evaluation of another publication 🞛 This publication contains editorial commentary or bias from the source}

Delhi High Court Issues Restraining Order on Activists Alleged to be Publishing Defamatory Content About Adani Enterprises

New Delhi, 7 September 2025 – In a decision that underscores the growing tension between free‑speech advocates and powerful corporate interests, the Delhi High Court on Tuesday restrained a group of activists from publishing or disseminating content that the court deemed defamatory towards Adani Enterprises. The ruling, delivered by a bench headed by Hon’ble Justice R. K. Sharma, was made in the civil suit filed by the infrastructure conglomerate, which has been embroiled in a series of high‑profile litigation battles over environmental and financial allegations in recent years.

1. Background: Adani Enterprises and the Rising Wave of Defamation Claims

Adani Enterprises, the flagship company of the Adani Group, is one of India’s largest private‑sector conglomerates, with interests spanning power, logistics, and mining. Over the past decade, the group has faced criticism from environmental NGOs, community groups, and independent activists who allege that its projects have caused ecological damage and have operated with lax regulatory compliance. In 2023, Adani Enterprises was sued by an activist organisation that had published a series of videos and blog posts on social media, accusing the company of polluting the Narmada River and violating national environmental laws.

The company, which has a long track record of using the courts to protect its reputation, filed a civil defamation suit in the Delhi High Court on 23 April 2025. The petition claimed that the activists’ content “sought to tarnish the company’s public image” and “contained false statements that could not be substantiated.”

2. The Defamatory Content in Question

The activists at the center of the lawsuit are members of the “People’s Knowledge Network” (PKN), a network of citizen‑journalists and NGO workers who routinely share investigative content on platforms such as Twitter, YouTube, and WhatsApp. In late March 2025, PKN posted a 12‑minute documentary that alleged:

• That Adani Enterprises’ coal‑mining operations in the Chhattisgarh forest reserve had led to irreversible loss of biodiversity.
• That the company had repeatedly ignored Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) guidelines set by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change.
• That local communities had been forcibly displaced without proper compensation, in violation of the Forest Rights Act.

The documentary was shared widely, generating over 300,000 views in a week and sparking a wave of protests outside Adani‑owned mines. Adani Enterprises, in turn, described the content as “groundless, sensationalist, and harmful to its reputation.”

3. The Court’s Order: Key Provisions and Legal Basis

Justice Sharma’s bench, after reviewing the evidence, granted an interim restraining order that:

1. Prevents the activists from publishing or distributing any further content that contains statements deemed defamatory of Adani Enterprises.
2. Mandates the deletion or removal of the documentary from all platforms, including YouTube, Twitter, and WhatsApp.
3. Orders the activists to submit a written statement to the court by 10 September 2025 explaining the basis of their claims and any evidence that substantiates them.
4. Grants the court a power to impose a bond of ₹50 lakh against any party that fails to comply with the order.
5. Empowers the police to investigate any breach and to file a First Information Report (FIR) under Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for defamation.

The bench relied heavily on the IPC’s defamation provisions and Section 13(3) of the Information Technology Act, 2000, to support its decision. Justice Sharma noted that the court’s jurisdiction was “clear, and the evidence presented by the petitioner was compelling enough to warrant the restraining order.”

4. Reactions From Both Sides

Adani Enterprises’ Legal Team
Sandeep Patel, counsel for Adani Enterprises, said in a statement that the court’s decision “upholds the rule of law and protects the company’s right to a fair and honest public discourse.” He added that the company would “continue to cooperate with the court and ensure that the activists adhere to the order.”

PKN and Freedom‑of‑Speech Advocates
Pankaj Singh, a senior activist from PKN, contested the ruling, calling it an “unwarranted intrusion into the space of free expression.” He argued that the documentary was “an exercise of investigative journalism” that aimed to expose “potential environmental violations.” The organisation has already started the legal process to appeal the order in the Supreme Court, citing the right to freedom of speech under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.

Legal Commentators
Professor Anjali Sharma of the National Law School of India commented that the ruling “demonstrates the courts’ willingness to use defamation law as a tool to check corporate claims.” She warned, however, that “the line between legitimate criticism and defamatory content can be thin, and courts must tread carefully to avoid stifling public debate.”

5. Contextualizing the Decision in India’s Current Legal Landscape

The Delhi High Court’s ruling comes at a time when India has witnessed a spate of defamation lawsuits involving high‑profile business groups. The Supreme Court, in a 2023 decision, reaffirmed that the “defamation law should not be misused to silence dissent or legitimate criticism.” Yet, the Delhi High Court’s action shows that corporate plaintiffs still have a strong judicial footing when they can prove that statements are untrue and damaging.

The order also highlights the growing role of social‑media platforms in defamation litigation. Many of the cases filed in the last five years have involved content that was originally posted online, with courts increasingly holding platform operators accountable under Section 69A of the Information Technology Act.

6. Looking Ahead

While the restraining order is an interim measure, the litigation is far from over. Adani Enterprises is expected to file a petition for a permanent injunction, while PKN and its supporters are preparing a counter‑argument based on the principle of “public interest journalism.” The court has scheduled a further hearing for 22 September 2025, where both parties will be invited to present their arguments in detail.

The outcome of this case will not only affect the parties involved but could also set a precedent for how defamation cases involving powerful corporate entities and activist groups are handled in India. It remains to be seen whether the court will ultimately balance the right to free expression against the need to safeguard reputations and prevent the spread of falsehoods.

For updates on this case, stay tuned to our legal affairs coverage.