On September 6, a Delhi court sided with Indian industry conglomerate Adani Enterprises and ordered an injunction against nine journalists and digital platforms, restricting them from publishing and distributing content Adani considered "unverified and defamatory."

The gag order applies to some of India'smost followed journalists and content creators, such as Ravish Kumar, Dhruv Rathee, Paranjoy Guha Thakurta and Abhisar Sharma.

The court ordered immediate takedown of media content, including nearly 140 YouTube videos and over 80 Instagram posts from prominent news outlets and commentators. This was enforced by India's Information and Broadcasting Ministry (MIB) through rapid takedown notices.

Adani order sets a 'troubling precedent'

Although the court in its order said that "fair and accurate reporting based on substantiated and verified material" would remain protected, attorney Nakul Gandhi told DW that the "ex parte" nature of the order is concerning for press freedom.

An ex parte order is a temporary court order issued on behalf of one party without the other party receiving notice or having a chance to present its own perspective. It is generally issued to prevent one party from harming another. However, in this case, ex parte could mean media content can be censored before it is legally ruled that the material is defamatory or unverified.

"The ex parte nature of the original gag order violates fundamental principles of natural justice and constitutional free speech protections," said Gandhi, who also represents some of the journalists in the Adani case.

Gandhi added that the order's sweeping breadth and overreach, combined with rapid enforcement by government agencies, risks normalizing pre-publication censorship as a routine legal tool.

"The gag order sets a troubling precedent for wider use of legal and administrative powers to control digital discourse in India by curtailing an individual's freedom of speech," Gandhi said.

The Adani ruling also applies to individuals not specifically named in the case. In the US, these are known as John Doe orders, while in India, they are referred to as "Ashok Kumar" orders. They have been traditionally used in intellectual property cases that involve unknown defendants. Now, there is concern that these mechanisms are being expanded to censor media.

"The court's takedown and gag order, issued without hearing the defendants, is also applicable to 'John Doe' defendants, which can extend to absolutely anyone," journalist Abir Dasgupta, who was included in the order, told DW.

"There is no question that it will have a chilling effect on future reporting," he added.

How have Indian media responded?

Akash Banerjee, known for his satirical YouTube channel "The Deshbhakt," said he was included in the Adani gag order sweep, despite operating openly and carefully for seven years.

"Look at the alacrity and speed with which the MIB executed the court order. These actions have a chilling effect far beyond those named in the order. At one level, there's lip service to press freedom, while at another, there's this happening," Banerjee told DW.

M K Venu, co-founder of The Wire, a digital news platform that has also been affected by the gag order, told DW that the ruling is dangerous because it violates constitutional guarantees that assure freedom of speech and expression.

"In this instance, the government has colluded to give extraordinary directions to a large number of online media platforms to take down YouTube and Instagram links concerning the Adani Group on the pretext that they are defamatory," said Venu.

"If this goes unchecked without court intervention reinforcing media's right to free expression, then a time would come when journalists will not be able to question big corporations that grow unregulated with implicit government support," he added.

'The process itself becomes the punishment'

Indeed, there has been some pushback against the ruling. Last week, a Delhi court sided with four journalists — represented by Nakul Gandhi — who appealed the gag order, quashing it on grounds that they had not been given a chance to defend themselves before being silenced.

Investigative journalist Ravi Nair, who was among the four journalists, said the recent ruling on behalf of Adani is just another example of using prior restraint to muzzle journalists.

Nair, known for his reporting on corporate and political issues, said the use of ex-parte rulings echoes legal tactics such as so-called Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP) cases.

SLAPP are lawsuits filed primarily to intimidate, silence or burden critics by forcing them into costly and time-consuming legal battles, rather than depending on legal merits.

"I am fighting another defamation suit, again filed by the Adani Group in 2021. The idea behind such suits is that journalists will feel exhausted due to the legal expenses, time wasted and mental harassment," said Nair.

"The process itself becomes a punishment. Hence, people usually hesitate to investigate the corrupt practices of these corporate houses," he added.

Press freedom slipping in India

The Editors Guild of India termed the court order and the content takedown "troubling."

"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," said the guild in a statement.

The South Asia Press Freedom Report released by the International Federation of Journalists in May presents a stark assessment of press freedom in India, highlighting persistent and deepening challenges for journalists and media organizations.

"The media, considered a major stakeholder in the world's largest democracy, has been shackled and subjected to a systemic strategy to cripple it," says the introduction to the report. "Over the past twelve years, the print and electronic media have been tamed by interventions by the government and corporate owners." 

What do we know about Adani?

Billionaire businessman Gautam Adani is chairman of Indian conglomerate Adani Group, which is involved in infrastructure, energy, transport, mining and consumer goods, and operates major airports and roads across India.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi is widely perceived to be a close ally of Adani, whose business interests often align with the government's growth goals.

The Adani Group has not responded publicly to questions about the interim injunction and its implications for free speech and press freedom.

However, lawyer Jagdeep Sharma, who is among those representing Adani, told DW the ruling against the journalists was justified.

Adani's defamation lawsuit claimed the reporting in question was aligned with "anti-India interests."

"The negative reporting amounted to an unjust campaign against the group, harming its reputation and overshadowing its contributions. There are vested interests behind this," said Sharma.

Last week, allegations of stock manipulation and other malfeasance against Adani levied in 2023 by US short-selling firm Hindenburg Research were cleared by Indian regulators. 

Edited by: Wesley Rahn