I&B Ministry Issues Takedown Notices to Independent Media and YouTubers Following Delhi Court’s Adani Defamation Verdict
New Delhi, September 16, 2025 — The Union Ministry of Information and Broadcasting (I&B) has issued notices to independent media houses, prominent YouTubers, and journalists, ordering the removal of 138 YouTube videos and 83 Instagram posts mentioning the Adani Group, citing an ex parte interim order from a Delhi court in a defamation case filed by Adani Enterprises Limited (AEL). The directive, issued on September 16, 2025, has sparked widespread controversy, with critics labeling it an assault on press freedom, while supporters argue it upholds the judiciary’s efforts to curb defamatory content. The move has intensified debates about corporate influence, judicial transparency, and the role of digital media in India.
Background of the Defamation Case
On September 6, 2025, Senior Civil Judge Anuj Kumar Singh of the Rohini Courts in North West Delhi issued an ex parte interim injunction in favor of AEL, restraining a group of journalists, activists, and websites from publishing or circulating what it described as “unverified, unsubstantiated, and ex-facie defamatory” content about the Adani Group. The defendants named in the suit included journalists Paranjoy Guha Thakurta, Ravi Nair, Abir Dasgupta, Ayaskant Das, and Ayush Joshi, alongside entities like the Bob Brown Foundation, Dreamscape Network International Pvt Ltd, Getup Limited, Domain Directors Pvt Ltd (trading as Instra), and unnamed John Doe persons. Websites such as paranjoy.in, adaniwatch.org, and adanifiles.com.au were also targeted.
AEL’s lawsuit alleged that these individuals and platforms were running “agenda-driven” campaigns to tarnish the company’s reputation and disrupt its global operations. The company claimed that coordinated defamatory publications, amplified on social media, had caused irreparable harm to its public image, shaken investor confidence, and led to significant financial losses. The court found a prima facie case in AEL’s favor, noting that continued circulation of such content could expose the company to a “media trial” and further damage its goodwill. The order mandated the removal of specified content within five days and restrained the defendants from publishing unverified reports until the next hearing.
I&B Ministry’s Notices
On September 16, 2025, the I&B Ministry escalated the matter by issuing notices to additional media houses and YouTubers not named in the original lawsuit, directing them to take down 138 videos and 83 Instagram posts that referenced the Adani Group. The notices, based on the Delhi court’s September 6 order, targeted prominent outlets like The Wire and Newslaundry, as well as YouTubers such as Ravish Kumar, Ajit Anjum, Dhruv Rathee, and Akash Banerjee (The Deshbhakt). The ministry’s letter, as reported by The Wire, stated that the publications had failed to comply with the court’s deadline and demanded action within 36 hours, with copies marked to Meta Platforms Inc. and Google Inc.
Notably, many of the flagged videos and posts did not contain new reporting or opinions but included references to public allegations, such as those by the US Securities and Exchange Commission against the Adani Group. For instance, The Wire was served a notice for a single Instagram post citing these allegations, which are matters of public record. Similarly, one of Newslaundry’s flagged videos was a subscription appeal featuring a screenshot of an Adani-related article, raising questions about the scope of the takedown orders.
Public and Political Backlash
The I&B Ministry’s notices have triggered a firestorm of criticism, with accusations of overreach and suppression of free speech. On X, posts by users like @SauravDassss highlighted the “alarming” nature of the order, stating, “Adani has been given blanket liberty to compile its own rolling blacklist and have platforms takedown ‘alleged defamatory content’ within 36 hours, without further judicial scrutiny, until the court says.” Another user, @menakadoshi, noted the targeting of prominent journalists and outlets, calling it a “sweeping takedown” that threatens independent media.
Opposition leaders seized the opportunity to criticize the government. Congress General Secretary Jairam Ramesh tweeted, “This is a blatant attempt to muzzle independent journalism. The Adani case exposes how corporate power and government collusion silence dissent.” The Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) echoed similar sentiments, with Delhi Minister Saurabh Bhardwaj stating, “The I&B Ministry’s notices are a direct attack on press freedom. The government must clarify why it’s shielding corporate interests over public accountability.”
The Editors Guild of India condemned the ministry’s actions, urging the government to respect journalistic freedom. “While defamatory content must be addressed, broad takedown orders based on ex parte rulings risk stifling legitimate reporting,” the Guild said in a statement. Media watchdogs like the Press Club of India also expressed concern, calling for a review of the court order to ensure it does not infringe on Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, which guarantees freedom of speech.
Legal and Ethical Concerns
The ex parte nature of the Delhi court’s order has been a focal point of criticism. An ex parte order, issued without hearing the defendants, is typically reserved for urgent cases where irreparable harm is imminent. In this instance, the journalists and activists named in the suit, including Paranjoy Guha Thakurta, were not given an opportunity to present their case before the injunction was granted. The court clarified that “fair, verified, and substantiated” reporting on AEL was permissible, but the broad scope of the order and the subsequent I&B notices have raised fears of a chilling effect on journalism.
Legal experts argue that the ministry’s actions may overstep its jurisdiction. “The I&B Ministry is not a judicial body and cannot enforce court orders unilaterally,” said Advocate Sanjay Hegde, a senior lawyer. “Targeting entities not party to the original suit, like The Wire and YouTubers, raises questions about due process.” He noted that the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, require digital platforms to comply with court orders, but the ministry’s proactive role in issuing notices is unusual and potentially problematic.
The case also draws parallels to recent controversies, such as the Karnataka government’s consideration of licensing YouTube news channels to curb unethical practices. The Adani defamation case underscores the tension between corporate reputation and press freedom, particularly in the digital age, where platforms like YouTube amplify independent voices.
Adani Enterprises’ Perspective
AEL, represented by advocates Vijay Aggarwal and others, argued in court that the defamatory content had caused “incalculable damage” to its investors and operations. The company alleged that the targeted publications, including those on paranjoy.in, adaniwatch.org, and adanifiles.com.au, were part of a coordinated effort to malign its brand and disrupt critical infrastructure projects. AEL’s counsel cited the Hindenburg Research report of 2023, which alleged financial irregularities and suggested a potential 90% stock decline, as an example of damaging narratives amplified by the defendants.
In a statement, an Adani Group spokesperson said, “We respect press freedom but will not tolerate malicious campaigns that harm our reputation and India’s economic interests. The court’s order is a step toward accountability.” The company emphasized that it had faced regulatory scrutiny in 2023 and emerged clean, rebuilding market confidence.
Implications for Digital Media
The I&B Ministry’s notices have sent shockwaves through India’s digital media landscape, where YouTubers and independent outlets play a significant role in shaping public discourse. Critics fear that the broad application of the court order could set a precedent for corporations to use defamation suits to silence dissent. “This is a dangerous trend. If corporates can leverage ex parte orders to demand mass takedowns, it undermines the democratic role of the press,” said media analyst Rohan Sharma.
The controversy has also highlighted the challenges of regulating digital platforms. While the IT Rules, 2021, impose obligations on intermediaries like YouTube and Meta to remove unlawful content, the lack of clear guidelines on handling court-ordered takedowns has led to confusion. YouTube’s Community Guidelines already address misinformation and harassment, but the platform has not commented publicly on the I&B notices.
Looking Ahead
The next hearing in the defamation case is scheduled for October 2025, when the defendants will have an opportunity to present their arguments. Meanwhile, the affected media houses and YouTubers are exploring legal options to challenge the I&B notices and the court order. The Wire has announced it will seek judicial recourse, arguing that its Instagram post was factual and based on public records. Other targeted individuals, including Dhruv Rathee, have vowed to continue reporting within legal bounds.
The incident has galvanized calls for judicial reform, with activists urging the Supreme Court to establish clearer protocols for ex parte orders and takedown notices. As India navigates the intersection of corporate power, digital media, and press freedom, the Adani defamation case serves as a critical test of the country’s commitment to transparent and equitable justice.
For More News Updates Follow Us On Www.tconews.in
