The Calcutta High Court on Monday issued an interim injunction restraining the publication, uploading, and sharing of a documentary featuring Prime Minister Narendra Modi and industrialist Gautam Adani. The court’s order remains in effect until January 31, 2027, or until further judicial intervention occurs, whichever happens earlier. The case follows a defamation plea filed by Adani Enterprises Limited against tech entrepreneur Sabeer Bhatia and other unnamed parties, alleging that the documentary contains false and defamatory content.
Presiding over the matter, Justice Aryak Dutt directed the owners and operators of several social media platforms—specifically mentioning X, YouTube, and Instagram—to immediately remove or disable access to the video. The court order extends to any clips, excerpts, or materially identical reproductions of the content. Platforms have been instructed to disable not only the original uploads but also all engagement mechanisms, such as reposts, quote posts, and shares, that allow users to access the material through the specified URLs.
In its directives to the digital intermediaries, the court mandated the preservation of critical data, including subscriber registration details, IP logs from the time of upload, and access logs related to the accounts involved. Furthermore, the court ordered these platforms to disclose the basic subscriber information for any unidentified account holders to the court in a sealed cover, with the submission expected via affidavit within two weeks of the order’s communication.
During the proceedings, counsel for the petitioner argued that the documentary contains various allegations that are false, asserting that the right to reputation is an integral aspect of Article 21 of the Constitution. Adani Enterprises noted that while access to the initial YouTube upload had been previously disabled within India—reportedly following a government complaint under the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021—the content has continued to circulate through re-uploads and new posts on various social media accounts.
The court clarified that its ruling is specifically targeted at the impugned video and its reproductions. Justice Dutt emphasized that the order is not intended to stifle fair reporting or constructive criticism concerning the petitioner, the Adani Group, or government policies, provided such discourse is conducted outside the scope of the flagged documentary and its associated defamatory statements.
Addressing the timeline for further legal action, the court instructed the respondents to submit their affidavits-in-opposition within four weeks of receiving the service notice. The petitioner has been given an additional two weeks thereafter to file an affidavit-in-reply. The matter is scheduled to be heard by the regular bench during the January monthly list.
This judicial intervention underscores the ongoing legal challenges surrounding digital content regulation in India. By mandating the preservation of logs and data, the court has set a framework for identifying the entities behind the dissemination of the material. The proceedings highlight the tension between digital freedom of expression and protections against reputational damage as defined under current defamation laws and constitutional interpretations.
Comments