Court directs removal and disabling of access to YouTube, X, and Instagram posts alleging false claims against Adani Group, emphasizing caution in defamation injunctions involving public interest
In a significant ruling dated October 26, 2026, the Calcutta High Court, presided over by Mr. Aryak Dutt, J., granted an ad-interim injunction in favor of Adani Enterprises Limited against the creators and distributors of a controversial video titled "How Modi and Adani Stole India The Friendship Files." The video, uploaded on YouTube and reposted on social media platforms like X (formerly Twitter) and Instagram, contained alleged defamatory and false imputations against the Adani Group, a major Indian corporate entity.
The suit was filed by Adani Enterprises Limited seeking damages, permanent and mandatory injunctions to restrain the circulation of the video and its reproductions. The video was described by the Court as a dramatized narrative, not a mere news report, presenting serious accusations including theft, narcotics smuggling linked to terror funding, and false prosecution allegedly involving the company. The Court noted that these were assertions of fact unsupported by any authoritative findings.
The original upload had been disabled in India following a Government complaint under the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021. Despite this, the video continued to be circulated through reposts and re-uploads on various channels and accounts listed in the petition's Schedule A.
The Court underscored the delicate balance required when granting injunctions in defamation cases touching upon matters of public interest. Citing the Supreme Court's recent decision in Bloomberg Television Production Services India Pvt. Ltd. v. Zee Entertainment Enterprises Ltd. (2024 SCC Online SC 426), it reiterated that injunctions must be granted sparingly and only in exceptional cases where content is prima facie malicious or palpably false. It further recognized the public's right to know and the chilling effect such injunctions may have, thus emphasizing careful judicial scrutiny.
In this case, the Court found a prima facie case that the video's content was malicious and false, and that continued dissemination would cause irreparable harm to the petitioner's reputation. The Court directed the intermediaries operating YouTube, X, and Instagram to remove or disable access to the video at the specified URLs and to preserve subscriber information, IP logs, and advertisement revenue details related to the content.
The injunction was specifically tailored to restrain only the identified video, its clips, excerpts, materially identical reproductions, and defamatory imputations as pleaded. The Court clarified that constructive criticism or truthful reporting backed by evidence on the petitioner or government policy is not restrained by this order.
The Court also allowed the petitioner liberty to add further respondents or content as and when identified, with directions for compliance reporting and affidavit filings by the intermediaries within stipulated time frames. The interim injunction will continue till January 31, 2027, or until further orders.
This landmark decision reinforces the balance between protecting reputation and upholding freedom of expression in the digital age, especially concerning defamation claims involving public interest and major corporate entities.
Bottom Line:
Defamation - Ad-interim injunction - Social media video and reposts containing prima facie defamatory imputations against corporate plaintiff - Court held that pre-trial injunction in defamation matters involving public interest must be granted sparingly, but where content is prima facie malicious or palpably false and continued online dissemination would cause irreparable injury to reputation, platforms/intermediaries can be directed to remove or disable access to specified URLs and preserve subscriber and access details.
Statutory provision(s):
Information Technology Act, 2000 Section 79(3)(b), Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 Rule 3(1)(d), Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 Order 2 Rule 2
Adani Enterprises Limited v. Sabeer Bhatia, (Calcutta) : Law Finder Doc Id # 3004063
