New Delhi, Sept 17, KNT: India’s Ministry of Information and Broadcasting has directed YouTube and Instagram to take down more than 200 pieces of online content critical of Adani Enterprises, following an ex-parte interim injunction issued by a Delhi court earlier this month. The move, arising from a defamation suit filed by the conglomerate, has reignited debate on press freedom, corporate influence, and the limits of free speech in the digital age.
According to official sources, the ministry ordered the removal of 138 videos and 83 posts from the two platforms after the court ruling on September 6, 2025. The injunction was granted in response to a petition filed by Adani Enterprises against senior journalists, including Paranjoy Guha Thakurta and Ravi Nair, over reports and commentary critical of the conglomerate’s business practices.
Join our WhatsApp Group
The Delhi court order not only required immediate removal of the specified content but also empowered the company to maintain a rolling blacklist. Under this provision, Adani can notify platforms of additional material it considers defamatory, which the intermediaries are then obligated to remove within 36 hours. This sweeping mandate extends to future uploads, affecting not just investigative journalism but also satirical content and even unrelated material flagged by the conglomerate.
📢 8,000+ readers already joined for instant Kashmir News Trust updates
Join our Telegram Channel
Among those impacted by the order are prominent journalists and digital creators such as Ravish Kumar and Dhruv Rathee, whose videos and posts had amassed large audiences online. Several satirical creators have also reported their work being taken down under the order, raising questions about proportionality and the scope of the court’s interpretation of defamation.
Defendants in the case have appealed against the ruling, arguing that it constitutes a violation of Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, which guarantees freedom of speech and expression. Free speech advocates warn that the precedent set by the rolling blacklist could have chilling effects on independent journalism and digital expression. “This effectively allows a private corporation to act as a censor without the due process of law. It is deeply concerning for democratic discourse,” said one media rights activist.
While the Delhi case has captured national attention, Adani Enterprises is also pursuing defamation proceedings in Gujarat. Journalists Abhisar Sharma and Raju Parulekar have been summoned over reports related to alleged irregularities in land allotments in Assam. The two cases combined reflect a broader legal strategy by the conglomerate to challenge reporting it deems harmful to its reputation.
The ministry’s swift compliance with the Delhi court order has raised further concerns about the independence of regulatory mechanisms. Critics argue that the ex-parte nature of the injunction, granted without hearing the defendants, undermines principles of natural justice. “The danger lies in how easily such interim orders can silence critical voices, long before a court has had the chance to weigh evidence in a full trial,” said a senior lawyer familiar with media litigation.
Social media platforms have so far complied with the takedown orders, but civil society organisations are expected to mount legal challenges seeking clarity on the boundaries of corporate defamation claims and constitutional protections for speech. Meanwhile, several creators whose content has been taken down said they were given no prior notice and discovered the removal only when their audiences reported missing videos or posts.
As appeals move forward, the controversy is likely to fuel wider debate about the balance between protecting corporate reputations and safeguarding free expression in India’s rapidly expanding digital space. With investigative journalists, independent YouTubers, and satirical artists all caught in the net of the takedown order, the case is already being seen as a flashpoint in the evolving relationship between media, judiciary, and corporate power. [KNT]
