Court Overrules Order Targeting Journalists in Adani Defamation Case

A Delhi court has overturned a previous order that directed four journalists to remove allegedly defamatory content about Adani Enterprises. The court emphasized that the initial ruling lacked a hearing for the journalists, risking violating free speech rights under Article 19 (1) (a) of the Indian Constitution.

A Delhi court has overturned an earlier decision that mandated four journalists to withdraw allegedly defamatory articles against Adani Enterprises Limited (AEL). Critiquing the prior ruling as 'sweeping,' the court noted that it functionally concluded the lawsuit without a trial.

The September 18 order, released publicly on Friday, declared a stay on the previous decision issued on September 6, citing that the trial court issued extensive directives without affording the journalists a chance to be heard. This action stemmed from AEL's defamation complaint, which saw a civil judge originally ordering ten defendants, including the journalists, to take down critical content.

District Judge Ashish Aggarwal evaluated the appeal and contended that without hearing from the appellants, the civil court misplaced its assumption that the journalists had published 'unverified, inaccurate, and irresponsible statements.' He directed the lower court to consider the matter afresh, upholding press freedom under the Constitution.

The journalists, represented by advocate Vrinda Grover, argued against the September 6 order that restricted them from disseminating alleged unverified content. The district court criticized the civil judge for permitting AEL to expand the scope of their suit without finding existing content libellous.

The court highlighted the risk of exposing authors to contempt without due adjudication of whether their work was truly defamatory. Ensuring fair hearing procedures, the judge stressed that prior opportunities for the defendants to present their arguments were imperative.

Conclusively, the decision to set aside the initial order underlines commitment to upholding constitutional principles before impeding on journalistic dissemination. The court has left the suit's merits open, instructing the senior civil judge to reevaluate the application, fresh orders following due process.

(With inputs from agencies.)