A Delhi district court has overturned a previous order that restricted four journalists from publishing allegedly defamatory content against Adani Enterprises Limited (AEL). The court stated that the civil judge failed to provide the journalists an opportunity to be heard before issuing the restraining order. The case has been sent back to a lower court for reconsideration after hearing arguments from both sides.

The overturned order had restrained journalists Ravi Nair, Abir Dasgupta, Ayaskant Das, and Ayush Joshi from publishing allegedly defamatory stories against AEL. District Judge Ashish Aggarwal of the Rohini Court held that the lower court should have reviewed the content in question and granted the defendants a hearing. Judge Aggarwal stated that because this opportunity was not given, the order was not sustainable and has been set aside. The order will only apply to the appellants in this court.

Advocates Vrinda Grover and Nakul Gandhi represented the journalists. Grover argued that the ex parte ad interim order was obtained for a June 2024 article and questioned the urgency and lack of notice. She pointed out that the company, which runs one of the largest media houses in the country, claimed they had only just encountered these articles. Grover also noted that hundreds of videos and posts had been taken down because of this order, calling the prayers "over-arching and sweeping". She described it as an "extraordinary tsunami order". Furthermore, Grover questioned the filing of the suit as a declaration suit to bypass the higher burden required in defamation suits.

The case stems from articles and social media posts by Thakurta and other journalists dating back to 2017. AEL alleged that these publications contained "unverified and incorrect" claims that caused reputational harm. AEL, represented by Senior Advocates Anurag Ahluwalia, Jagdeep Sharma, and Vijay Aggarwal, argued that the content used "atrocious language" and lacked an evidentiary basis.

Senior advocate Trideep Pais, representing journalist Paranjoy Guha Thakurta, told the court that AEL wanted to control the whole media, calling the order "completely overboard". The court observed that the company did not appear sure whether they had been defamed by the journalist.

The court directed the lower court to take up the interim application for consideration after hearing from both sides and to decide uninfluenced by any observation. The court has directed the trial court to hear both sides and decide by October 15.

The Editors Guild of India had raised concerns over the original directive, which led to takedown notices from YouTube and government authorities. The Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) had also issued takedown notices to 13 news publishers and platforms, citing the injunction.