In a significant relief for journalist Paranjoy Guha Thakurta, a Delhi district court has lifted an ex parte injunction that had restrained him from reporting on Adani Enterprises Ltd (AEL). The gag order, issued on 6th September by a civil court, had barred Mr Thakurta and other journalists from publishing allegedly defamatory material about the Gautam Adani-led company.
District judge Sunil Chaudhary of Rohini courts ruled that Mr Thakurta 'will not be liable to follow the order dated 6 September 2025 till fresh orders are passed' by the trial court after hearing him. The court directed the senior civil judge, North-West, who had originally granted the injunction, to hear Mr Thakurta along with other defendants on Friday, 26th September.
The 6th September injunction, passed by civil judge Anuj Kumar Singh, had not only restrained five journalists—Mr Thakurta, Ravi Nair, Abir Dasgupta, Ayaskant Das, and Ayush Joshi—but had also extended to unknown 'John Doe' defendants. The order came in a defamation suit filed by AEL, which alleged that a coordinated campaign by journalists and activists had tarnished its reputation, undermined investor confidence, and disrupted critical infrastructure and energy projects.
While judge Ashish Aggarwal had already lifted the gag order against Mr Nair, Mr Dasgupta, Mr Das and Mr Joshi on 18 September 2025, Mr Thakurta’s appeal remained pending before judge Chaudhary. On Thursday, judge Chaudhary clarified that the journalist could not be compelled to follow the injunction until the trial court reconsiders the matter. “Needless to say that the trial court while passing the fresh orders on the application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC will consider the principles of law settled qua the grant of interim injunction,” the judge says in his order.
The case has seen a series of procedural wrangles in recent weeks. Newslaundry, the digital news platform that carried some of the contested material, also challenged the injunction, but judge Chaudhary initially observed that it was not a party to the original suit. At one stage, principal district and sessions judge Gurvinder Pal Singh declined a request to transfer Mr Thakurta’s appeal to judge Aggarwal, reasoning that since arguments had already been advanced before judge Chaudhary, propriety demanded that he decide the matter.
During hearings, senior counsel Trideep Pais, appearing for Mr Thakurta, assailed the 6th September order as 'overbroad and unreasoned'. He argued that it failed to identify what exactly was defamatory, instead adopting AEL’s submissions wholesale. The injunction, Mr Pais contended, extended even to group companies not party to the suit and authorised AEL to demand takedowns from intermediaries without judicial oversight. “The order effectively allows Adani to be the judge in its own case,” he told the court, adding that some of the cited articles dated back as far as 2017.
AEL, represented by senior counsel Anurag Ahluwalia, countered that Mr Thakurta’s publications were part of a pattern of defamatory reporting designed to damage the group’s reputation and spook investors. Reading excerpts from articles, Mr Ahluwalia said they suggested Adani manipulated government policy and drew comparisons with Elon Musk in ways that misled readers. “This is not fair journalism. These repeated publications are aimed at tarnishing the reputation. There has to be a stop to this kind of reporting, which affects investors and the market,” he submitted.
The civil court that granted the injunction on 6th September had accepted AEL’s plea that continued circulation of such material could cause irreparable harm to its brand and stakeholders. The court held that the company had made a prima facie case for an interim injunction and directed the removal of allegedly defamatory content from websites such as paranjoy.in, adaniwatch.org and adanifiles.com.au. It also ordered the service of the suit through multiple means, including WhatsApp and email.
The district court’s latest order, however, means Mr Thakurta is free to publish until the trial court hears him and decides afresh. The senior civil judge has been asked to apply established principles governing interim injunctions, including whether the contested material can be deemed defamatory at this stage.
The matter will now return to the Rohini Civil Court on 26th September, where both Mr Thakurta and the other journalists will be heard before any fresh order is issued.
