New Delhi — India’s Ministry of Information and Broadcasting has directed 13 digital news publishers to take down social media posts critical of the Adani Group, after a Delhi civil court issued an order earlier this month restraining journalists and activists from circulating what it described as unverified and defamatory reports.
The notice, sent Tuesday to platforms including YouTube and Instagram, listed 138 video links and 83 Instagram posts to be removed. The order stemmed from a defamation case filed by Adani Enterprises Ltd., the flagship company of billionaire Gautam Adani.
India to Honour Top CISOs from Police, Law Enforcement, and Defence Forces
Among those named were independent journalists and media outlets, including News Laundry, The Wire, HW News, and content creators such as Ravish Kumar, Dhruv Rathee, Abhisar Sharma and Aakash Banerjee. The directive also cited “unidentified individuals,” described as “Ashok Kumar/John Doe,” accused of posting critical content.
The ministry’s notice emphasized compliance with the September 6 ex parte order, which called for the removal of “defamatory and unverified” material within five days. It further instructed intermediaries to act within 36 hours of receiving the directive.
“It has come to the notice of this Ministry that the said Order has not been complied with,” the government’s notice read, warning that further legal action would follow if the platforms or publishers failed to act.
The case underscores the growing legal battles between India’s corporate giants and independent media, raising questions about freedom of expression and the balance between judicial orders and press scrutiny.
Legal experts noted that under India’s Information Technology rules, platforms are required to comply with court directives, but said it was unusual for the ministry to issue takedown notices on behalf of a private litigant.
Dhruv Garg, a governance analyst, cautioned that such interventions could blur the lines between judicial authority and executive enforcement. “If no additional obligation has been created or direction provided by citing any law or rule, then there is no illegality,” he said. “But if a court order exists, it must be complied with, regardless of whether the state is involved.”
The order has already been challenged. Journalist Paranjoy Guha Thakurta, one of the defendants, told the court that the ex parte ruling was “completely overbroad” and covered articles published as far back as 2017. The judge adjourned the hearing until later this week.
The dispute highlights the broader tension between India’s courts, the government, and independent media outlets at a time when corporate influence over public discourse remains under intense scrutiny.