Calcutta High Court Injunction Against Modi-Adani Video
The Calcutta High Court Injunction concerns a 36-minute YouTube video titled “How Modi and Adani Stole India: The Friendship Files.” The Court restrained its online circulation after Adani Enterprises Limited filed a defamation suit.
On October 26, 2026, Justice Aryak Dutt issued an ad-interim pre-trial injunction against the disputed content.
The Court directed YouTube, X, and Instagram to remove or disable access to the identified video links.
Additionally, the order covers re-uploads, reposts, shares, quote posts, and shortened excerpts containing the disputed material.
The Court considered the case exceptional because the video allegedly contained serious factual accusations without adequate verification.
Court Raises Concerns Over Unverified Allegations
The High Court examined the nature of the allegations against Adani Enterprises Limited.
According to the Court’s observations, the video presented a dramatized narrative rather than conventional news reporting.
It allegedly linked the company to narcotics smuggling and terror financing.
Furthermore, the video reportedly accused the company of influencing state police action against a farmer.
The Court noted that these allegations involved serious factual claims.
However, the material before it did not adequately substantiate those claims.
Consequently, the Court considered whether continued circulation could cause substantial reputational harm.
Background of the Defamation Suit
Adani Enterprises Limited initiated the civil defamation proceedings against Sabeer Bhatia and several other defendants.
Bhatia operates the YouTube channel Bcubed (Breaking Boundaries with Sabeer Bhatia) and the X account @sabeer.
The company also named YouTube, X, Instagram, and two unidentified individuals in the proceedings.
The disputed video appeared online on October 9, 2026.
According to the suit, Bhatia collaborated with another YouTube channel, Shadow Citizens, to publish the content.
The video reportedly attracted more than 46,000 YouTube views on its first day.
Additionally, it received approximately 40,000 views on X during the same period.
Government Complaint and Continued Circulation
Authorities had previously restricted access to the original YouTube upload within India.
The restriction followed a government complaint under Rule 3(1)(d) of the Information Technology Rules, 2021.
However, copies of the video allegedly continued circulating through other online accounts.
These included re-uploads, reels, shortened clips, and social media posts.
The plaintiff also alleged that Bhatia shared the video link again on X on October 22, 2026.
Consequently, Adani Enterprises sought judicial intervention to prevent further circulation.
The Court considered whether these circumstances justified immediate interim protection.
Social Media Platforms Directed to Remove Content
Justice Aryak Dutt directed major social media intermediaries to restrict access to the disputed material.
The order covers specific URLs identified in the petition.
It also extends to reproductions containing the allegedly defamatory statements.
The directions concern three major platforms:
- YouTube: Remove or disable access to the identified video and relevant re-uploads.
- X: Restrict the specified posts, reposts, and shared content containing the disputed allegations.
- Instagram: Remove or disable access to identified reproductions and shortened clips.
Additionally, the Court directed the preservation of relevant subscriber information, IP records, and access logs.
The order refers to Section 79(3)(b) of the Information Technology Act, 2000, and the applicable intermediary guidelines.
These provisions address intermediary responsibilities following legally valid directions.
Calcutta High Court Injunction and Free Speech
The dispute also raises questions about freedom of expression and protection against defamation.
Senior Advocate Anirban Ray appeared for Adani Enterprises Limited.
He argued that the company did not seek to prevent legitimate criticism of government policies or commercial activities.
Instead, the plaintiff challenged specific factual allegations that it considered defamatory.
Furthermore, counsel submitted that corporate reputation deserves legal protection.
The arguments referred to constitutional principles concerning reputation and Article 21.
However, the Court also considered the importance of protecting free speech.
Supreme Court Precedent on Pre-Trial Injunctions
Justice Dutt referred to the Supreme Court’s decision in Bloomberg Television Production Services India Private Limited v. Zee Entertainment Enterprises Limited.
That judgment emphasizes caution when courts consider pre-trial injunctions in defamation disputes.
Such orders can restrict public discussion before a court fully examines the evidence.
Therefore, courts must carefully assess the competing interests.
They must consider freedom of expression, reputational rights, and the potential consequences of immediate restraint.
Moreover, judicial intervention should not unnecessarily suppress legitimate reporting or public-interest criticism.
The Calcutta High Court examined these principles while considering the plaintiff’s request.
Why the Court Considered the Case Exceptional
The Court distinguished the disputed video from ordinary news reporting.
According to its preliminary observations, the video presented serious accusations as factual assertions.
The Court also considered the alleged absence of adequate verification.
Furthermore, the plaintiff argued that continued circulation could cause substantial reputational damage.
The Court consequently found sufficient grounds for temporary intervention.
However, the injunction does not constitute a final determination of the defamation allegations.
The parties may contest the claims during subsequent proceedings.
Interim Order Effective Until January 31, 2027
The High Court directed the removal or disabling of the identified content.
The temporary injunction will remain effective until January 31, 2027, unless the Court issues further directions.
Meanwhile, the defendants will have an opportunity to respond during the proceedings.
The Court may reconsider the interim restrictions after examining the parties’ submissions.
Therefore, the present order addresses immediate concerns rather than finally deciding the defamation suit.
Implications for Online Defamation and Digital Media
The case highlights the legal responsibilities of digital publishers and social media intermediaries.
Online platforms allow information to spread rapidly across multiple channels.
However, serious factual allegations can also cause reputational damage when publishers fail to verify them.
At the same time, courts must protect legitimate criticism, investigative reporting, and public-interest discussion.
The dispute illustrates the importance of balancing these competing interests.
Ultimately, the proceedings may offer further guidance on interim relief, online defamation, and digital platform responsibilities in India.
