SC Guidelines vs Adani Gag Order: Free Speech and Defamation Cases

Adani Gag Order Latest News

• Recently, a lower court issued a sweeping ex-parte gag order restraining several journalists, including Paranjoy Guha Thakurta, from publishing allegedly defamatory content against Adani Enterprises Limited (AEL). 
• The order also directed removal of numerous articles and social media posts. 
• Following this, the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting issued takedown notices, resulting in the removal of 138 YouTube videos and 83 Instagram posts — some being satire or indirect references to Adani.

SC Guidelines on Defamation Injunctions

• The Bonnard Standard
  • The Supreme Court follows the Bonnard principle (1891, Bonnard vs Perryman).
  • It states that a court can grant an injunction only when it is satisfied that the defendant may not be able to justify the defamation, and not merely when it suspects defamation.
• SC’s Bloomberg Ruling (2024)
  • In 2024, the SC applied this principle while overturning an ex parte injunction ordering Bloomberg to take down an article on Zee Entertainment. 
  • The Court stressed that pre-trial injunctions should be rare, granted only when withholding them would cause “greater injustice.”
• Supreme Court’s Caution on Ex Parte Orders
  • The SC has held that ex parte injunctions in free speech cases must only be granted in exceptional circumstances, and only when content is “malicious” or “palpably false.” 
  • Otherwise, they risk stifling public debate and undermining the public’s right to know.

‹ ›

The September 6 Adani Gag Order

• A Delhi court issued a blanket gag order restraining Paranjoy Guha Thakurta and others from publishing content about Adani Enterprises Limited (AEL), while also authorising takedown of existing material within 36 hours.
• This judgement had serious lacunas:
  • No judicial examination of the allegedly defamatory content was carried out.
  • The order effectively allowed AEL to curate public information about itself.
  • Journalists were restrained from publishing “unverified or defamatory” reports, amounting to prior restraint — unconstitutional under Article 19(1)(a).

Why Prior Restraint is Problematic

• Restrictions on speech are valid only under Article 19(2), covering grounds like sovereignty, security, public order, morality, and defamation.
• But prior restraint carries a heavy burden of proof and is rarely justified.
• Journalists must be heard since truth and fair comment are lawful defences in defamation cases.

Delhi Court Quashes Gag Order in Adani Defamation Case

• Later, District Judge of Delhi Court quashed the gag order for four journalists — Ravi Nair, Abir Dasgupta, Ayaskant Das, and Ayush Joshi — stating the order was unsustainable.
• The court emphasised that the journalists had not been given an opportunity to be heard, violating principles of natural justice.
• It noted that declaring articles defamatory and ordering their removal without defence could lead to irreversible consequences.
  • If later found non-defamatory, restoring removed content would be infeasible.

Key Highlights of the Judgement

• The gag order was quashed for being ex-parte and unsustainable.
  • An ex parte order is a court ruling made at the request of one party without the other being present or notified. 
  • It is granted only in urgent situations for temporary relief, such as restraining orders, to prevent harm until a full hearing with both parties ensures fairness and due process.
• The court reaffirmed that defendants must be given a chance to present their defence before sweeping takedown orders.
• Judge warned against irreversible harm from premature content removal.
• The ruling narrowed the scope but left other related appeals and the main defamation trial pending.

Source: IE | TH | B&B