The I&B Ministry has ordered YouTubers and media outlets, including The Wire and Newslaundry, to take down content on Adani following an ex-parte court order.

New Delhi: The Ministry of Information and Broadcasting has issued notices to several digital media outlets and YouTubers, instructing them to remove 138 videos and 83 Instagram posts related to the Adani Group. The directive, sent on September 16, follows an ex-parte interim order passed earlier this month by a district court in North West Delhi in a defamation suit filed by Adani Enterprises.

Among those named in the takedown order are Newslaundry, The Wire, Ravish Kumar, Ajit Anjum, Dhruv Rathee, and Akash Banerjee (Deshbhakt). The order also flagged certain social media posts that merely referenced previously reported allegations, including one post by The Wire on the US SEC’s probe into Adani. In one case, even a subscription appeal by Newslaundry featuring a screenshot of an article was included in the list.

The I&B Ministry’s letter stated that since the flagged publications did not comply with the court’s timeframe, they must act immediately and report back within 36 hours. Copies of the order were also marked to Google and Meta, the platforms hosting the content.

The court order itself has raised questions, as it was passed without hearing all the defendants. Judge Anuj Kumar Singh noted that while the case justified interim orders, the defendants were not barred from engaging in “fair, verified, and substantiated reporting.”

Journalist Paranjoy Guha Thakurta, who faces multiple defamation suits from the Adani Group, responded by saying he would continue to defend his work in court. “I have full faith in the judiciary… everything I’ve written or stated is in public interest,” he said.

Analysis

This development has once again brought the tension between corporate defamation suits and press freedom into sharp focus. For independent creators and smaller outlets, compliance with blanket takedown orders can be financially and logistically challenging. Media analysts note that such actions could set a precedent where critical reporting is curtailed by legal overreach, even before courts hear all sides of the argument.