Prominent journalist Ravish Kumar has moved the Delhi High Court challenging a Central government directive to remove allegedly defamatory videos about industrialist Gautam Adani and his companies from his YouTube channel. The petition argues that the order constitutes an unconstitutional overreach and threatens press freedom in India.
The government’s communication, issued on September 16, instructed Kumar and other digital platforms to comply with a September 6 trial court order from Delhi’s Rohini Court. That order, stemming from a defamation suit filed by Adani Enterprises Limited (AEL), injuncted several journalists and unnamed defendants from publishing content deemed defamatory against Adani.
Kumar, who commands a substantial digital following with nearly 14 million subscribers on YouTube, contends that the lawsuit and subsequent government action amount to a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP). He describes it as a “classic” attempt to suppress legitimate journalism through legal intimidation and resource exhaustion.
In his plea, Kumar asserts that the government’s directive lacks statutory authority and violates constitutional principles, including the separation of powers and freedom of speech.
“By directing compliance with a private civil court order without statutory authority, procedural compliance, or constitutional justification, the Respondent [Central government] has violated fundamental principles that have been the bedrock of Indian constitutional jurisprudence since independence,” the petition states.
The journalist further argues that the order imposes prior restraint on speech and undermines democratic discourse. He calls the move an “unprecedented and unconstitutional exercise of executive power.”
The matter is scheduled for a hearing before Justice Sachin Datta on Monday, September 22. A similar petition has been filed by digital news platform Newslaundry, which will also be heard on the same day
Notably, an appellate court on September 18 partially set aside the Rohini Court’s order with respect to four journalists. However, the injunction against unnamed defendants remains in force.
The case has sparked debate over the boundaries of defamation law, executive authority, and the role of digital media in holding powerful entities accountable. As the legal battle unfolds, it is likely to have significant implications for press freedom and digital expression in India.
Written By: Tannu Singh
Lawcutor 