In a significant legal development with wide-ranging implications for press freedom, online platforms and corporate reputation, a Delhi court has granted an interim injunction to Adani Enterprises (AEL) in its defamation suit against journalist Paranjoy Guha Thakurta, four other writers and a set of foreign-linked organisations and intermediaries.
The order, delivered on 6 Sep 2025 by Senior Civil Judge Anuj Kumar Singh, restrains the defendants from publishing, distributing or circulating unverified and defamatory articles, social media posts and videos targeting the Adani Group. It also directs that existing defamatory material be removed within five days, while intermediaries such as website hosts and registrars must comply within 36 hours of being notified under the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021.
The injunction represents a major interim victory for Adani Enterprises, which has argued that a coordinated global smear campaign has harmed not only its own reputation but also India’s broader economic credibility. The matter is next scheduled for hearing on 9 October 2025.
The case arises from a complaint filed by Adani, which alleged that a set of websites — paranjoy.in, adaniwatch.org, and adanifiles.com.au — had repeatedly published false and malicious content accusing the Group of corruption, political patronage, crony capitalism, bribery and stock manipulation.
Alongside Paranjoy Guha Thakurta, the complaint named journalists Ravi Nair, Abir Dasgupta, Ayaskant Das and Ayush Joshi as defendants, along with the Bob Brown Foundation (Australia), Dreamscape Networks (Singapore), GetUp Ltd (Australia) and domain registrars associated with the allegedly defamatory websites. A category of unidentified “John Doe” defendants was also included to capture unknown individuals circulating similar content.
Adani Enterprises, represented by senior advocate Jagdeep Sharma, advocate Vijay Aggarwal and a battery of other lawyers, argued that these actors were aligned with “anti-India interests” and were deliberately undermining projects that are critical to India’s infrastructure and energy security. The plaint said the publications had caused significant reputational damage, driven away investors, delayed projects in Australia, Africa, Bangladesh and Israel, and wiped billions from market value.
The company also linked the smear campaign to the fallout from the January 2023 Hindenburg report, which it said had already triggered panic in markets by falsely predicting a 90% collapse in Adani stock values. The defendants, it argued, had repeatedly referenced the Hindenburg claims to perpetuate sensationalism. Notably, the short-selling firm Hindenburg Research, which published the 2023 report, had shut down after losing its credibility.
The complaint stressed that Adani Enterprises is the flagship of the Adani Group, which is engaged in large-scale projects across energy, infrastructure, logistics and consumer essentials. It pointed to the Group’s $15 billion in revenues, international assets such as the Haifa Port in Israel, coal operations in Australia and power plants in Jharkhand, arguing that its reputation is central to its ability to raise funds and execute projects worldwide.
The complaint asserted that the Adani name, under which more than 80 companies, trusts and institutions operate, is a “reputed global brand recognised by the general public” — one that is being unfairly maligned through “agenda-driven” websites and content designed to serve foreign political and financial interests.
In its 14-page order, the Court examined whether Adani had established the three key requirements for interim relief: a prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury if relief were denied.
The Court concluded that Adani had met all three tests. It noted that defamatory content “may cause strain to the balance sheet, delay execution of projects, wipe off billions worth of investors’ money, create panic in the market and lead to loss of goodwill and reputation at a global scale.”
Judge Singh emphasised that while the Constitution guarantees freedom of speech under Article 19(1)(a), this right is not absolute and is subject to reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2), including protection of reputation. He drew on Supreme Court precedents including Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India (2016), which affirmed that reputation is a fundamental right under Article 21.
Citing judgments in Shashi Tharoor v. Arnab Goswami, Naveen Jindal v. Zee Media, and Swami Ramdev v. Juggernaut Books, the Court reiterated that media freedom must be tempered by responsibility, and that trial by media can cause “irreparable, irreversible, and incalculable harm.”
The order granted several key injunctions sought by Adani:
• Removal of defamatory content: Defendants must expunge incorrect, unverified and prima facie defamatory material from their websites, articles, social media posts and tweets within five days.
• Takedown by intermediaries: Platforms hosting the material must remove or disable access within 36 hours of notice, while preserving records for 180 days.
• Ban on further defamatory statements: Defendants are restrained from publishing or circulating any new unverified or defamatory statements against Adani until the next hearing.
• Liberty to extend scope: Adani is permitted to notify intermediaries of additional links, URLs or posts, which must then be removed under the Court’s directions.
At the same time, the Court clarified that its order should not be construed as a blanket gag on fair, verified and substantiated reporting of court proceedings or investigations. “This order shall not have a bearing on the merits of the matter,” Judge Singh noted.
The case and order are likely to reignite debate over the balance between corporate reputation and media freedom in India. Critics may argue that interim injunctions risk chilling investigative journalism, especially when applied to foreign NGOs and websites that have reported on Adani’s global projects.
However, senior media lawyers point out that the Court explicitly distinguished between fair reporting and unverified defamatory attacks. By directing removal only of “prima facie defamatory” content, while leaving space for substantiated reporting, the Court attempted to strike a balance between protecting reputation and safeguarding free speech.
The injunction also highlights the growing role of IT intermediaries in defamation disputes. By invoking the 2021 IT Rules, the Court placed legal responsibility on platforms and registrars to act swiftly, within 36 hours, when notified of defamatory material. This could set a precedent for more aggressive enforcement of intermediary obligations in defamation cases.
With the injunction in place, the defendants — including Paranjoy Guha Thakurta and the operators of the foreign-linked websites — will have to decide whether to comply, contest the order at the next hearing, or appeal. The matter is slated to come up on 9 Oct 2025 for further arguments on the merits.
The interim relief marks another assertive step in Adani’s broader legal strategy to counter narratives it views as false and malicious. Legal circles say Adani is likely to file criminal defamation complaints soon against a prominent YouTuber and a blogger in a local court in Gujarat, where the Group is headquartered.
The Court’s injunction order in Adani Enterprises Ltd. v. Paranjoy Guha Thakurta & Ors. is not the final word in the case, but it is a significant marker in the ongoing tension between corporate reputation and investigative scrutiny.
By granting interim relief and compelling removal of defamatory content, the Court recognised the tangible financial and reputational harm alleged by Adani. At the same time, by explicitly protecting fair and verified reporting, it acknowledged the constitutional imperative of press freedom.
As the case moves forward, its outcome will be closely watched — not only by the parties involved, but also by journalists, activists, investors and policymakers grappling with the boundaries of free speech in a digital era where narratives spread faster, further and with higher stakes than ever before.
Also Read: Adani Power, Bhutan’s DGPC Join Hands for Landmark Wangchhu Hydropower Project
