Thread by @barandbench

Delhi's Rohini Court to hear shortly journalist Paranjoy Guha Thakurta's appeal against a gag order restraining him from publishing defamatory content against Gautam Adani's Adani Enterprises.

Hearing to start at 10AM.

#Adani @paranjoygt #GautamAdani

District Judge Sunil Chaudhary to hear the case.

On Wednesday, Judge Rakesh Kumar Singh had refused to hear the case on an urgent basis.

Read detailed story here:
barandbench.com/news/what-will…

Sr Adv Trideep Pais, appearing for Thakurta, reaches court.

Senior Advocates Anurag Ahluwalia and Jagdeep Sharma, representing Adani Enterprises, are also in court.

Judge Chaudhary presides.

Matter called.

Adani's lawyers ask the court to take up the other Journalists' matter with this appeal.

Court: wo jab aaegi tab le lenge.

Pais: We have challenged the ex parte order. It prohibits publication of any material not only against the plaintiff but also against any other group company.

Pais: The urgency is that an order has been passed by Central govt to intermediaries to remove all the materials.

Counsel again asks for the two matters to be heard together

Judge refuses and continues to hear.

Pais takes the court through his prayers.

Pais is taking the court through Adani's prayers in the defamation suit.

Who will decide what is defa.atory is left to the plaintiff: Pais.

All the companies mentioned are not the plaintiff: Pais.

They say my reporting is damaging India's energy interests. Trying to equate themselves with India: Pais.

Pais: He says the court did not say how the material is defamatory or if the injunction is not granted it will cause irreparable loss... The order says they have not been found guilty of anything. But that is not the test of defamation.

Pais. No reasoning whatsoever that articles renders a prima facie case of injunction. There is no individual referred to here. The suit is by a company named AEL. See how many mistakes there are. There are no reasons.

Pais: The articles are several years old. The articles are one, two, three or sometimes six years old.

Pais: these are the companies with 200-300 media managers.

Pais: While the court says it is not passing a blanket order... this verification of unsubstantiated and defamatory is left to the plaintiff. The plaintiff is turned into a judge.

A site has many articles. The judge has left it to the plaintiff to write to the intermediaries and get removed anything they find defamatory: Pais.

Pais: The plaintiff has been put in the shoes of a judge.

Pais: Under this order, plaintiff can write to Facebook and Google and get it removed. The hyperlinks are also to be removed. They can get anything removed from any part of the internet.

Any intermediary can be informed by the plaintiff of any link: Pais.

Pais: In effect what the order does is that quotes certain articles by me and says this content and any other content can be removed.

Court: How is this order applicable? It becomes binding only upon service to you. That is the law.

Pais: The central govt is taking action.

Court: wo unka alag jurisdiction hai.

Court: If the central govt is not party how can they take action?

Pais: They have been informed and they are acting on it.

Pais: The action is pursuant to this order.

To unke itne bade bade lawyer hain unko batao ki wo kaise act kar rahe hain. Central govt to party hi nahi hai: Court.

Court: You can file before the civil judge saying I came to know about this order i have not heard and say hear me.

Court asks Adani how this court (Rohini Court) has jurisdiction.

Court (Adani Enterprises): Is court ka jurisdiction kyu banaya?

Court: Koi madam Chaitali hai jinhone aapko bataya ye ye materia circulate ho raha hai.

Advocate Vijay Aggarwal for Adani says the defamation was online.

Court: Aap court ki declaration chaah rahe hain. Kisi ne internet pe padh k aapko bataya. Relief to aapki ye hi chaah rahe hain na ki court declare kare ki ye defamatory hai.

Court asks Adani lawyers if the order was served on Thakurta and how.

Ahluwalia tells the date and time when it was served.

Court: You are seeking declaration.

Sharma (for Adani Enterprises) : And till the time the court declares, an injunction order be passed.

Court: Till the court makes a declaration, how can the injunction be passed?

Court: Aap log ek baar decide kar lo ki kaun argue karega.

Aggarwal continues.

Court: Court ne kaha hai defamatory hai?

Aggarwal: To ye log kyu aae hain? Agar defamatory nahi hai to ghar baithe jab contempt lagega tab aae.

Aggarwal: Ye log aap se bhi to ex parte order hi maang rahe hain. Hamne to reply file kiya hi nahi hain.

Court: To aap reply file kare ham tab tak stay kar dete hain. Aapne to caveat file kar rakha tha. inko to pata bhi nahi tha ki aap Rohini m suit file karoge.

Court: Ye to removal ka order hai.

Ye volleyball ka match thodi hai ki itne argue karenge: Court.

Sr Adv Ahluwalia tries to argue.

Court: Vakalatnama kiska hai? Usko argue karne do.

Court is told Ahluwalia is a senior counsel. The court allows him to argue.

Ahluwalia: Jo court ki observation hain wo para 11-12 se hain.

Ahluwalia reads the order.

Ahluwalia: The Supreme Court gave me cleanchit there was no case against me.

Ahluwalia: The court has given a finding that the further publication and circulation may tarnish my image.

Ahluwalia now takes the court through allegedly defamatory material published by Thakurta

He reads an article titled: 'Adani's controversial footprint in India's neighbourhood'.

Ahluwalia: The article says what Elon Musk is to the US, Adani is to Modi and that Delhi has bent norms or looked the other way when investigation against Adani has taken place.

Ahluwalia: This is just tip of the iceberg. Far more worse language in other articles.

Court: What line is defamatory?

Ahluwalia: That govt tweaked norms for me.

Court: To isme aapko kya dikkat ho rahi hai?

Ahluwalia is reading another article.

This article concerns export of electricity and the article names Adani Power.

The article says Modi govt altered rules for the company's benefit.

Ahluwalia: Mere jo investment the they were being tarnished.

Court: Is article ke baad aapke shares pe kay effect hua? Saath saath clear karte chale.

Court: This article is not based on the report (Hindenburg report) in which you were given cleanchit.

Ahluwalia: Ab sir har baar article aaega saying Prime Minister ke sath ye hi gaya wo ho gaya...

Ahluwalia: Yesterday they started with saying that the Central govt is in our pocket.

Court: Aap bhi kisi ko pocket m hoge. Bolta rahe... Koi kuchh bhi bolta hai.

Ahluwalia reads another article.

Ahluwalia: Is article ki language.. they declare it as a scam. When you have such materials, you don't publish but you go around and say there is a scam. Our agony is that the buck doesn't stop here. Time and again there are articles tarnishing me. If they are journalists... They are sitting and scheming in the room, making up stories. Should I wait for my shares to go down?

Court: My lord should ask them what is the China angle behind them?

Aggarwal says Guha is being investigated by NIA under terror law.

Pais is making rejoinder.

Court: What material does he have for writing this article?

Pais: The US material is in public domain.

Pais: The freedom of expression cannot be curtailed like this.

Court: What is the freedom of expression?

Court questions Pais over one of Thakurta's lawyer.

Court: Kya material hai iske liye aapke paas?

Pais: We will produce that in ourt written statement.

Court: to fir written statement file kare. Court ne time diya to hai aapko.

Pais also questions Adani's decision to sue Thakurta in Rohini.

Pais: They put up a person who says she received a call.

Pais cites some judgements.

Pais concludes.

Vijay Aggarwal cites some judgements.

Order reserved.