Delhi court refuses transfer of Newslaundry & Paranjoy Guha Thakurta appeals in Adani gag order

A Delhi court has declined to transfer two appeals filed by journalist Paranjoy Guha Thakurta and the digital platform Newslaundry in connection with an ex parte gag order restraining reporting on Adani Enterprises Limited. The appeals sought to have their case heard by a different judge — one who had previously quashed a similar gag order in respect of other journalists. The Principal District and Sessions Judge at Rohini Court ruled on 23 September that the matter will remain with the original judge, Sunil Chaudhary. 

The gag order was issued ex parte (without Adani being present to contest initially), restraining certain reporting on the Adani group. In earlier related cases involving four other journalists, the gag was quashed. The petitioners in those cases had requested that the appeal in the current matter be transferred to the judge who had quashed the earlier gag orders, but the court refused, citing procedural norms and the existing case assignment. 

Sunil Chaudhary will continue to hear the pleas. The court has scheduled the next listing for 24 September. Newslaundry and Guha Thakurta — among critics of corporate dealings and media freedom in India — had argued that transferring the case was necessary for fairness and consistency, given the earlier reliefs granted to other journalists. Adani’s legal representatives opposed the transfer, maintaining that the current judge is competent and the matters should remain with him. 

Why this decision matters

This decision has sparked debate about parity in how courts handle gag orders and freedom of the press. Critics argue that if some journalists are given relief (gag orders quashed), others in near identical circumstances deserve the same. Meanwhile, the court emphasised procedures of the judiciary, including case allocation, previous orders and judge availability. This underscores the importance of uniform procedure in maintaining judicial consistency.

The case addresses freedom of expression, media accountability and corporate reputation. Gautam Adani's company has argued that some reports were defamatory. Journalists and media advocacy groups view gag orders as a chilling effect, potentially suppressing investigative journalism. Maintaining the case with the judge who issued the gag order may lead to concerns about bias or unfairness, whether real or perceived.

What next?

Newslaundry and Paranjoy Guha Thakurta may pursue higher remedies, including appealing to higher courts or seeking fresh relief on grounds of fairness. Public interest advocates might push for more straightforward guidelines on gag orders, including when they may be used, what process is due and how consistency across similar cases should be ensured. Media observers will closely watch the outcome of the subsequent hearings.