Order asking journalists to take down content against Adani firm set aside

A fifth journalist, Paranjoy Guha Thakurta, had filed a separate challenge which was heard by a different court that posted the matter to September 22.

Deciding the challenge filed by the four journalists, District Judge Ashish Aggarwal said, “I am of the opinion that the court of the senior civil judge ought to have made observations of which material was defamatory. The posts, spanning over a substantial period, were questioned by the plaintiff (AEL) through the suit, but the court didn’t find it fit to grant the opportunity to the defendants. In my opinion, the judge should have granted the defendants a chance before prima facie declaring that they (the posts) were defamatory.”

In his September 6 order, Senior Civil Judge Anuj Kumar Singh had said: “…At this stage, instead of issuing a blanket order on restraining defendants No. 1 to 9 from fair, verified and substantiated reporting and from hosting, storing/circulating such articles/posts/URLs, it would suffice the interest of justice to restrain defendants… from publishing/distributing/circulating unverified, unsubstantiated and ex-facie defamatory reports about the plaintiff (AEL) allegedly tarnishing the reputation of the plaintiff till the next date of hearing.”

On Thursday, Advocate Vrinda Grover, who appeared for the four journalists via video link, said the ex parte interim order had been obtained for older articles. “Why the rush? Why no notice even of two days or three days? The court could have heard us. All posts were in the public domain,” she said.

Advocate Vijay Aggarwal, who appeared for AEL, said the law recognises ex parte orders. “They (the journalists) say the ex parte order was passed but today they are asking for an ex parte order,” he said.

Another observation which the counsel of the journalists objected to was that the AEL was allowed to provide links of alleged defamatory material to intermediaries and the intermediaries were directed to take down such content.

The September 6 order had said: “The plaintiff is given opportunity to apply to intermediaries/concerned agencies with details of the URLs/posts/hyperlinks/articles on the basis of this order and intermediaries/concerned agencies are directed to take down/remove the alleged defamatory articles/posts/URLs whereby the prime facie defamatory material is published against the plaintiff within 36 hours, however they shall preserve the contents and record till further orders.”

Setting aside this order, District Judge Aggarwal said: “The impact of such an order would be that the plaintiff (AEL) would send to intermediaries the material which the plaintiff thinks to be defamatory and seek removal of such articles. It has been left open to the intermediaries to determine whether the said articles are indeed defamatory.”

Meanwhile, a different court that heard Guha Thakurta’s challenge questioned the AEL on whether it was sure that the alleged posts were defamatory.

District Judge Sunil Chaudhary said, “What is the relief being asked by you? You are not yourself sure if it’s defamatory… You are seeking a declaration from the court. How can (an) injunction be granted if it hasn’t been declared defamatory.”

Following the September 6 order, the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting (MIB) had issued takedown notices to several journalists.

Senior Advocate Trideep Pais, who represented Guha Thakurta, told the court: “The urgency is that intermediaries have been asked to remove multiple articles. Who will determine what will be defamatory has been left to the plaintiff (AEL). That’s my problem with this order.” He also said, “It has nowhere been stated how the material is defamatory.”

Senior Advocate Anurag Ahluwalia, who represented the AEL before Judge Chaudhary, said: “Our agony is that the buck doesn’t stop here. Time and time again, there are articles to tarnish my reputation. Had he been a fair journalist, he would have cited the evidence.”

After hearing AEL’s arguments, the judge asked Pais: “Has he (Guha Thakurta) verified everything? Why is he only indicating? If he’s making a claim, why isn’t he making the data public?”

“The article is very general. You claimed that the government is changing its orders at the behest of Adani to benefit him… But which order? Till a legal notice is sent to you, you will publish whatever you want?” he said.