Calcutta High Court mandates removal of Adani video
The Calcutta High Court has ordered YouTube, X and Instagram to disable access to a video about Prime Minister Narendra Modi and industrialist Gautam Adani, granting interim relief to Adani Enterprises Limited in a defamation lawsuit.
Justice Aryak Dutt issued the order on Monday, restraining entrepreneur and Hotmail co-founder Sabeer Bhatia and other respondents from publishing, uploading or sharing the 36-minute production, titled “How Modi and Adani Stole India – The Friendship Files”. The restrictions remain effective until 31 January 2027 or further orders.
The injunction extends to clips, shortened versions, excerpts and materially identical reproductions. The platforms must disable specified links and associated reposts or shares, while the respondents must remove the disputed material from accounts and pages under their control.
Adani Enterprises argued that the documentary contained false and damaging allegations, including suggestions that the group was implicated in narcotics smuggling connected with terror financing or had escaped accountability for such activity. The company denied the imputations and said the production omitted material facts.
The court observed, at the preliminary stage, that the allegations concerning narcotics smuggling, terror funding and the alleged mistreatment of a farmer were not supported by findings from a competent authority. It characterised the production as a dramatised narrative rather than a news report or account of judicial proceedings.
Those observations do not constitute a final finding that every allegation is false. The underlying defamation suit remains pending, and the defendants have an opportunity to contest the company's assertions and the interim restrictions.
Justice Dutt acknowledged that injunctions before trial in disputes involving matters of public interest require particular caution. However, he considered that continued online circulation could cause reputational harm that monetary compensation might not adequately remedy, particularly when material could be rapidly reproduced across accounts.
The court expressly preserved the right to constructive criticism and fair reporting concerning Adani Enterprises, the wider Adani Group and government policy, provided such expression did not reproduce the disputed video or the particular allegedly defamatory statements covered by the injunction.
The video was uploaded on 9 October to Bhatia's Bcubed YouTube channel in collaboration with Shadow Citizens and subsequently appeared on X. It examines the relationship between Modi and Adani and questions aspects of the group's commercial dealings, including airport privatisation decisions.
The company maintained that the documentary presented disputed allegations as established facts. Its lawyers also argued that the narrative left out information about premium payments associated with land projects, creating what they described as a misleading account of the group's transactions.
The original YouTube upload had already been disabled for viewers in India following a government complaint, but copies continued to circulate. The court was informed that Bhatia had posted the material again on X on 22 October, an action it considered relevant to its preliminary assessment.
Bhatia has publicly disputed the company's position. He said the documentary had struck a nerve and maintained that his account was truthful. The lawsuit seeks damages of Rs 50 crore, alongside permanent and mandatory injunctions against dissemination of the disputed content.
The court's directions cover 39 entries identified in the company's application, comprising three YouTube uploads, 30 X entries and six Instagram entries. Specific post addresses must be supplied for several X entries before the corresponding removal directions can be implemented.
The platforms must preserve registration information, subscriber details and relevant internet protocol and access logs. They must provide identifying information concerning certain account holders confidentially under sealed cover, enabling the company to pursue proceedings against unidentified uploaders.
They have also been instructed not to serve advertisements against the specified material or distribute revenue generated through it. Records of advertising income already associated with the disputed content must be retained.
Compliance affidavits identifying disabled links and the dates of action are due within two weeks of communication of the order. The respondents have four weeks after service to file their opposition, with Adani Enterprises allowed another two weeks to reply.
The application is scheduled for consideration by the regular bench during the January 2027 monthly list. Senior advocate Anirban Ray appeared for Adani Enterprises, while advocate Pragya Jain represented Google at the interim hearing.
Justice Aryak Dutt issued the order on Monday, restraining entrepreneur and Hotmail co-founder Sabeer Bhatia and other respondents from publishing, uploading or sharing the 36-minute production, titled “How Modi and Adani Stole India – The Friendship Files”. The restrictions remain effective until 31 January 2027 or further orders.
The injunction extends to clips, shortened versions, excerpts and materially identical reproductions. The platforms must disable specified links and associated reposts or shares, while the respondents must remove the disputed material from accounts and pages under their control.
Adani Enterprises argued that the documentary contained false and damaging allegations, including suggestions that the group was implicated in narcotics smuggling connected with terror financing or had escaped accountability for such activity. The company denied the imputations and said the production omitted material facts.
The court observed, at the preliminary stage, that the allegations concerning narcotics smuggling, terror funding and the alleged mistreatment of a farmer were not supported by findings from a competent authority. It characterised the production as a dramatised narrative rather than a news report or account of judicial proceedings.
Those observations do not constitute a final finding that every allegation is false. The underlying defamation suit remains pending, and the defendants have an opportunity to contest the company's assertions and the interim restrictions.
Justice Dutt acknowledged that injunctions before trial in disputes involving matters of public interest require particular caution. However, he considered that continued online circulation could cause reputational harm that monetary compensation might not adequately remedy, particularly when material could be rapidly reproduced across accounts.
The court expressly preserved the right to constructive criticism and fair reporting concerning Adani Enterprises, the wider Adani Group and government policy, provided such expression did not reproduce the disputed video or the particular allegedly defamatory statements covered by the injunction.
The video was uploaded on 9 October to Bhatia's Bcubed YouTube channel in collaboration with Shadow Citizens and subsequently appeared on X. It examines the relationship between Modi and Adani and questions aspects of the group's commercial dealings, including airport privatisation decisions.
The company maintained that the documentary presented disputed allegations as established facts. Its lawyers also argued that the narrative left out information about premium payments associated with land projects, creating what they described as a misleading account of the group's transactions.
The original YouTube upload had already been disabled for viewers in India following a government complaint, but copies continued to circulate. The court was informed that Bhatia had posted the material again on X on 22 October, an action it considered relevant to its preliminary assessment.
Bhatia has publicly disputed the company's position. He said the documentary had struck a nerve and maintained that his account was truthful. The lawsuit seeks damages of Rs 50 crore, alongside permanent and mandatory injunctions against dissemination of the disputed content.
The court's directions cover 39 entries identified in the company's application, comprising three YouTube uploads, 30 X entries and six Instagram entries. Specific post addresses must be supplied for several X entries before the corresponding removal directions can be implemented.
The platforms must preserve registration information, subscriber details and relevant internet protocol and access logs. They must provide identifying information concerning certain account holders confidentially under sealed cover, enabling the company to pursue proceedings against unidentified uploaders.
They have also been instructed not to serve advertisements against the specified material or distribute revenue generated through it. Records of advertising income already associated with the disputed content must be retained.
Compliance affidavits identifying disabled links and the dates of action are due within two weeks of communication of the order. The respondents have four weeks after service to file their opposition, with Adani Enterprises allowed another two weeks to reply.
The application is scheduled for consideration by the regular bench during the January 2027 monthly list. Senior advocate Anirban Ray appeared for Adani Enterprises, while advocate Pragya Jain represented Google at the interim hearing.