Legal Overreach or Corporate Shield? Editors Guild Questions Court Order
(Judicial Quest News Network)
September 17, 2025 | New Delhi — The Editors Guild of India has expressed grave concern regarding a recent ex parte “John Doe” injunction issued by the Rohini District Court in the case of Adani Enterprises Ltd. vs. Paranjoy Guha Thakurta & Others. The order restrains nine named journalists and media organizations—as well as unnamed parties—from publishing or disseminating content deemed “unverified, unsubstantiated and ex facie defamatory” about the company. The Guild views this sweeping restraint as a troubling precedent for press freedom and editorial independence.
Equally troubling is the subsequent action by the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, which has issued notices to platforms including YouTube and Instagram, ordering the removal of more than 138 YouTube links and 83 Instagram posts. This extension of executive power has effectively given a private corporation powers to determine what constitutes defamatory content regarding their affairs, which extends the power to order content takedown.
The president of the guild Anant Nath further said that The Guild is concerned that such blanket powers granted to a corporate entity, coupled with ministerial action in issuing takedown directions, are a step towards censorship. They risk chilling legitimate reporting, commentary, and satire, and undermine the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression.
The Editors Guild respectfully urges the judiciary to ensure that defamation claims are adjudicated strictly in accordance with due process, rather than through ex parte injunctions that effectively constitute prior restraint. It further calls upon the Government to exercise the highest degree of restraint and refrain from functioning as an enforcement mechanism for private litigants in civil disputesA free and fearless press is indispensable to democracy. Any system that allows private interests to unilaterally silence critical or uncomfortable voices poses a serious risk to the public’s right to know
