E-Paper
13 news publishers ordered to remove posts on Adani group
The Ministry of Information and Broadcasting ordered 13 news publishers to remove allegedly defamatory content about Adani following a Delhi court ruling.
The Ministry of Information and Broadcasting on Tuesday issued a takedown notice to 13 news publishers on YouTube and Instagram after a Delhi civil court earlier this month restrained multiple journalists and activists from publishing allegedly unverified and defamatory reports against the Adani group and ordered the removal of any such content already published.
Journalists and media publishers received a list of 138 URLs of YouTube videos and 83 Instagram links which are to be taken down. A copy of the ministry’s order was sent to Google and Meta, which own YouTube and Instagram, respectively, according to the order seen by HT. HT did not receive a response from both companies. The ministry’s order includes names of journalists, media houses, and creators, including Newslaundry, Ravish Kumar, Dhruv Rathee, The Wire, Abhisar Sharma, Paranjoy Guha Thakurta, HW News, and Aakash Banerjee’s The Deshbhakt.
The ministry sought compliance with the Delhi court’s September 6 ex parte order in a defamation case filed by Adani Enterprise Ltd against journalists Paranjoy Guha Thakurta, Ravi Nair, Abir Dasgupta, Ayaskant Das, Ayush Joshi and five others, including an unidentified “Ashok Kumar/John Doe,” representing unknown individuals who posted content against the company and whose identities may be specified later by the plaintiff. Out of the list, Thakurta, Nair, Dasgupta, Das and Joshi have filed applications against the notice.
The order sought the removal of defamatory and unverified content within five days from their respective social media accounts/posts, and asked intermediaries to take it down within 36 hours of being notified.
“... it has come to the notice of this Ministry that the above said Order has not been complied with within the stipulated timeline. Accordingly, you are directed to take appropriate action for compliance of the aforementioned Order, and submit the action taken to the Ministry within 36 hours of the issue of this communication,” said the ministry’s notice issued on Tuesday.
Responding to HT’s queries on the government’s role, I&B secretary Sanjay Jaju said, “All news related directions from the court come to the I&B ministry only.” I&B joint secretary Senthil Rajan added, “Generally when there is a court order, we have to ask the necessary parties to comply.”
Legal experts told HT that under the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, specifically rule 3(1)(d), intermediaries are obliged to comply with a court order to remove content. They added that while an MIB notice directing compliance with such an order is uncommon, its rarity does not make it improper.
Dhruv Garg, a partner at India Governance and Policy Project, said: “If no additional obligation has been created or direction has been provided by citing any law or rule, then there is no illegality. If there is no exercise of executive power, the question of legality doesn’t arise. And in any case, a court order has to be complied, under its own force of law, by the parties against which it has been passed.”
The appeal against the civil court’s order filed by Paranjoy Guha Thakurta came up for hearing in a Delhi district court on Wednesday. Thakurta’s counsel submitted that the ex parte order was “completely overboard” and that the said articles have been in the public domain since 2017. However, the judge adjourned the matter for Thursday before the roster judge, who was on leave. While the counsel pressed, the court stated that “heavens won’t fall” if they are made to wait for 10 hours more before a hearing.
With inputs from Arnabjit Sur
