Digital media platform Newslaundry has approached the Delhi High Court to contest a directive from the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting (MIB) that instructs digital news publishers to remove various articles and videos about the Adani Group of Companies.
In a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, Newslaundry challenges the communication dated September 16 from the Ministry, which was sent to them and several independent journalists and content creators, including Paranjoy Guha Thakurta, Dhruv Rathee, Ravish Kumar, Abhisar Sarma, and Akash Banerjee (Deshbhakt). The MIB directive required them to “take appropriate action” in response to an ex-parte order issued by a Delhi Civil Court the same day, which mandated the removal of allegedly defamatory and unverified content concerning Gautam Adani and his companies.
Newslaundry contends that they were not a party to the defamation suit that led to the court’s order and that the Civil Court’s ruling did not reference any of their published content. They further assert that the only notice they received about the court’s order was through the MIB’s communication.
The Delhi Civil Court had issued its ruling following a civil defamation lawsuit filed by the Adani Group against specific journalists. The order included a provision for “John Doe” defendants, covering unidentified individuals who might have shared similar material. However, an appellate court in Delhi recently overturned the ex-parte order as it applied to four journalists.
In its petition, Newslaundry described the MIB’s directive as “administrative overreach” and an “inherently arbitrary exercise of executive power,” arguing it seeks to enforce a court order arising from a private legal dispute.
The petition emphasizes that the directive lacks legal, statutory, or constitutional grounding, asserting that the government cannot enforce compliance with court orders that violate the principles of separation of powers.
Newslaundry also points out that the MIB’s actions contravene Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, as the order was not issued by an officer of Joint Secretary rank and failed to follow the procedural requirements outlined in the Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking for Access of Information by Public) Rules, 2009.
Furthermore, they argue that the Civil Court’s order was restricted to “defamatory” and “incorrect reports,” and without a specific adjudication on these matters, a broad directive for takedown actions lacks legal justification.
The petition highlights that the YouTube and Instagram links referenced in the MIB’s directive contained no defamatory or unverified content. For instance, one flagged video was an interview with Aditya Thackeray that did not mention Adani or his companies, while another’s removal was ordered solely because its description labeled Adani’s Dharavi redevelopment project as controversial. Newslaundry asserts that this illustrates the Ministry’s overreach by enforcing excessive takedown actions.
Tags: Newslaundry, Delhi HC, Union directive, content removal, Adani
Hashtags: #inherently #arbitrary #exercise #Newslaundry #moves #Delhi #challenging #Unions #directive #removal #content #Adani
