New Delhi: A Delhi court on Thursday stayed the ex parte order restraining journalists Ravi Nair, Abir Dasgupta, Ayaskant Das and Ayush Joshi from publishing stories ‘defaming’ Adani Enterprise Limited (AEL). Another court, hearing the appeal by journalist Paranjoy Guha Thakurta in the same matter, has reserved its order.The Rohini court had passed an ex parte interim order on September 6 directing a number of journalists and activists to remove articles and social media posts allegedly defaming AEL and to not publish such material against the firm till the next hearing.Thakurta’s appealAppearing for Thakurta on Thursday, senior advocate Trideep Pais asked how the Union government could take action when it wasn’t a party to the case. On Tuesday, September 16, the Union I&B ministry had sent notices to two media houses and a number of YouTube channels in connection with the defamation case.“The urgency is that an order has been passed by [the] Central government to intermediaries to remove all the materials,” Pais said. “They say my [Guha’s] reporting is damaging India’s energy interests. Trying to equate themselves with India…Court did not say how the material is defamatory or if the injunction is not granted it will cause irreparable loss…The order says they (AEL) have not been found guilty of anything. But that is not the test of defamation,” he argued.District Judge Sunil Chaudhary of the Rohini Court was hearing Thakurta’s plea.‘Show how Adani’s shares were affected’The court asked Adani’s counsel how the Rohini Court has jurisdiction in the matter, Bar and Bench reported. “The defamation was online,” Adani’s counsel, advocate Vijay Aggarwal responded. On another counsel urging for an injunction to be passed, the court asked how that could be done before the court makes a declaration, the report said.On learning that Adani was yet to file a reply, the court said, “You file a reply, till then we will stay the order. You have filed a caveat. They didn’t even [know] you would file a suit in Rohini Court.”After going through Thakurta’s article, the court asked Adani’s counsel to point to the line that was defamatory. “That government tweaked norms for me,” Senior Advocate Anurag Ahluwalia, appearing for Adani Enterprises, replied.“To isme aapko kya dikkat ho rahi hai? (What is your problem with that?),” the court asked.The counsel then pointed to another article which alleged that the Modi government had altered rules for Adani’s benefit, prompting the court to ask the counsel to demonstrate how such articles have affected Adani’s shares.“Yesterday, they started [by] saying that the Central government is in our pocket,” Ahluwalia said. The court replied. “Aap bhi kisi ke pocket main hoge. Bolte rahe…Koi kuchh bhi bolta hai. (You are also in someone’s pocket. Let them say… people will say things).”“Is article ki language…they declare it as a scam. When you have such materials, you don’t publish but you go around and say there is a scam. Our agony is that the buck doesn’t stop here. Time and again, there are articles tarnishing me. If they are journalists…They are sitting and scheming in the room, making up stories. Should I wait for my shares to go down…My lord should ask them what is the China angle behind them,” Ahluwalia argued.The court reserved its order after hearing rejoinder arguments.Thakurta’s appeal for an urgent hearing in the matter was rejected on September 17. “What if your client doesn’t publish for two days? Is it a matter of life and death?” District Judge Rakesh Kumar Singh of the Rohini court had asked, adding that the matter was up for hearing the next day.Second court stays orderA separate challenge to the September 6 order was filed by journalists Ravi Nair, Abir Dasgupta, Ayaskant Das and Ayush Joshi. District Judge Ashish Aggarwal, also of the Rohini Court, heard the matter.Advocate Vrinda Grover, appearing for the defendants, said that the September 6 order is “not the court expressing its mind. It [is] the reproduction of the plaintiff’s averments and pleadings.”Dictating the order, judge Aggarwal said, “I am of the opinion that the [senior civil judge) ought to have made an opinion of the content. While articles and posts spanning a substantial period (2024-2025) were questioned by the plaintiff, the court did not deem it fit to grant an opportunity of hearing to the defendants.”“In my opinion that opportunity ought to have been granted before passing the order,” the judge said.Setting aside the September 6 order, the judge said, “The court should have given the defendants the opportunity of hearing. That not having been done. The order is not sustainable.”Journalists bodies express concern, disappointmentJournalist bodies have expressed concern and disappointment over the ex parte order as well as the subsequent I&B ministry notice asking media houses and a number of YouTube channels to take down material that mentioned the Adani Group.It may be noted that those who received the notice from the Union ministry on September 16 were not party to the original defamation case, in which the ex parte interim order was passed.“This makes it alarming that the ministry is going to such lengths to enforce a civil court’s order against journalists and publications who were not even parties to the case,” Digipub said in a statement dated September 16.Contrasting the ministry’s blanket orders for the removal of material with the court’s judgement that “did not issue a blanket ban, but instead only restrained the original defendants from publishing ‘unverified, unsubstantiated, and clearly defamatory reports’ until the next hearing,” Digipub asked if the Digital Secretary has the authority to demand the removal of a list of links within 36 hours, and whether the Digital Secretary has the Minister and Ministry’s blessing to do so.”“There was no process to appeal, and no clarity whatsoever on how the Deputy Secretary determined that the links were defamatory or if, in fact, this was determined at all,” the statement added.‘Unprecedented in scale and scope’Calling it an act of egregious judicial overreach, the Press Club of India said that “the court has put its stamp on the power to impose unrestrained censorship in the hands of corporate entities”.“The ex-parte order in the civil suit filed by Adani Enterprises Limited against 5 journalists and other John Doe defendants by which the order can be extended to anyone else from “publishing, distributing, circulating unverified, unsubstantiated and ex-facie defamatory reports”. This is, perhaps, the biggest, and a classic textbook case, of using SLAPP (Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation) to gag the free press in India. The order is unprecedented in its scale and scope for its potential misuse to silence the press,” the journalists body said.Questioning the rising trend of ex parte orders against journalists and media houses, PCI said that such orders over articles that are “perceived to be defamatory, or inconvenient, towards the powers that be is nothing but a sprint towards the imposition of a regime of unmitigated censorship.”‘Allows private interests to silence the press’Expressing concern over “blanket powers being given to a private entity” coupled with ministerial action, the Editors Guild of India said that the move was a step towards censorship.“They risk chilling legitimate reporting, commentary, and satire, and undermine the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression,” the statement said. “This extension of executive power has effectively given a private corporation powers to determine what constitutes defamatory content regarding their affairs, which extends the power to order content takedown,” the it added.The Guild called upon the government to exercise restraint “and avoid acting as an enforcement arm for private litigants in civil disputes.”The journalists bodies also underscored the need for a free media to ensure a vibrant democracy. “A free and fearless press is indispensable to democracy. Any system that allows private interests to unilaterally silence critical or uncomfortable voices poses a serious risk to the public’s right to know,” the EGI said.Calling free press an essential feature of democracy, PCI said that it was journalists’ job “to make people in power, or position, accountable to the public and serve their right to know.”