Circulation of Modi-Adani Video Restrained Till 31 January 2027, Rules Calcutta High Court

Circulation of Modi-Adani Video Restrained Till 31 January 2027, Rules Calcutta High Court in Adani Enterprises v. Sabeer Bhatia

Case: Adani Enterprises Limited v. Sabeer Bhatia and Others
Date of Judgment: 26 October 2026
Court: Calcutta High Court (Original Side)
Coram: Justice Aryak Dutt
Proceedings: Civil Suit No. 75 of 2026, IA/GA No. 1 of 2026 (ad-interim order)

Court Observation

“The restraint is confined to one identified video, its clips and its materially identical reproductions, and to the defamatory imputations contained in it as pleaded in paragraph 17 of the petition. Constructive criticism or truthful reporting on the petitioner or on Government policy, backed by evidence, is not barred.”

Summary

The Calcutta High Court has granted Adani Enterprises Limited an ad-interim injunction restraining the publication and circulation of a 36-minute video titled “How Modi and Adani Stole India: The Friendship Files”, in a defamation suit against its creator Sabeer Bhatia and the social media platforms. The injunction will remain in force until 31 January 2027 or until further orders, whichever is earlier, and the Court expressly stated that its observations are prima facie.

Applying the Supreme Court’s decision in Bloomberg Television Production Services India Pvt. Ltd. v. Zee Entertainment Enterprises Ltd., the Court held prima facie that the case falls in the exceptional class in which a pre-trial injunction in a defamation suit may be granted. The Court found that the video was a dramatised narrative whose title expressly imputed theft, and whose allegations about narcotics smuggling linked to terror funding, police violence and false prosecution against a farmer were assertions of fact, not opinion, with no finding of any authority shown in support. It also noted that the original upload had already been disabled in India, and that the repost after disablement prima facie showed want of good faith.

The Court directed the platforms to remove or disable access to the identified URLs and associated reposts, to preserve specified account information and records, to disclose basic subscriber information for unidentified account holders in a sealed cover, and not to serve advertisements or share revenue from the identified content. The restraint does not bar constructive criticism, fair reporting, or truthful, evidence-backed reporting on the plaintiff, the Adani Group or government policy.

Key Holdings

  • A pre-trial injunction in a defamation suit may be granted only in an exceptional class of cases, and this case prima facie falls in that class.
  • A dramatised narrative whose title expressly imputes theft, and whose narration and visuals are represented as factual, is not a news report or an account of proceedings.
  • Allegations presented as assertions of fact, with no finding of any authority shown in support, together with reposting after the original upload was disabled, can prima facie justify an ad-interim restraint.
  • The restraint is confined to the identified video, its clips and materially identical reproductions, and to the specified allegedly defamatory statements; constructive criticism and truthful reporting backed by evidence are not barred.

Directions Issued

  • The respondents and persons acting under their authority are restrained from publishing, sharing or circulating the video, its clips and materially identical reproductions containing the specified allegedly defamatory statements, until 31 January 2027 or until further orders.
  • The platforms shall remove or disable access to the identified URLs and associated reposts and shares, preserve specified account information, IP logs and access records, and disclose basic subscriber information for unidentified account holders in a sealed cover.
  • The platforms shall not serve advertisements on, or share revenue in respect of, the specified URLs or the impugned video, and shall preserve records of any advertising revenue generated from them.
  • The platforms shall file affidavits detailing compliance within two weeks of communication of the order; the respondents shall file affidavits in opposition within four weeks of service, and the plaintiff may reply within two weeks thereafter. The matter will be heard by the Regular Bench in January 2027.

Background

Adani Enterprises filed a suit for damages for defamation and for permanent and mandatory injunction, contending that the video, uploaded on 9 October 2026, contained false and defamatory statements and harmed its reputation. According to the plaint, the video had been viewed by 46,134 persons on YouTube and about 40,000 on X by that day. The original upload was later disabled in India, apparently on a government complaint under Rule 3(1)(d) of the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, but the video continued to be re-uploaded, and Bhatia reposted it on X on 22 October 2026.

Related Articles

Disclaimer: This is a summary prepared for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Readers should refer to the official judgment for the authoritative text.

Tags: , ,