The Editors Guild of India has expressed “deep concern” over a Delhi court order and subsequent government action that compelled the removal of several online posts, videos, and reports about Adani Enterprises Limited (AEL), calling the move a potential threat to press freedom.
Several journalists, independent creators, and platforms including YouTube and Instagram confirmed receiving notices asking them to delete content deemed “unverified and ex facie defamatory” following the order.
Court restrains reporting on Adani Enterprises
The Delhi court order restrained nine journalists, activists, and entities from publishing or circulating content against AEL unless it could be substantiated. The court directed that already published material identified as defamatory be removed within five days.
More controversially, the order authorised Adani Enterprises to flag any future content it considers defamatory. Once flagged, intermediaries or government agencies are required to remove such content within 36 hours.
The Editors Guild warned that this effectively transfers censorship powers to a private corporation.
Ministry action and large-scale removals
The Ministry of Information and Broadcasting followed up by issuing notices to major platforms. According to the Guild, over 138 YouTube links and 83 Instagram posts were ordered to be taken down.
Independent satirist Akash Banerjee, who runs the popular YouTube channel Deshbhakt, said he and other creators were directed to remove over 200 pieces of content within 36 hours. He added that there was no opportunity to contest or appeal the notices before removal.
Editors Guild calls it “troubling”
In a statement, the Editors Guild described the development as “equally troubling” because the Ministry’s intervention amplifies the effect of the court order. It argued that giving corporations the authority to decide what constitutes defamatory content undermines journalistic independence.
“A free and fearless press is indispensable to democracy. Any system that allows private interests to unilaterally silence critical or uncomfortable voices poses a serious risk to the public’s right to know,” the Guild’s statement read.
Broader debate on censorship
The incident has reignited debate over the limits of free expression and corporate influence on media in India. Critics argue that the case could set a precedent where large private entities use defamation claims to silence investigative or critical reporting.
Supporters of the takedown, however, claim that unchecked dissemination of “unverified” content can cause reputational harm and mislead the public.
Legal experts say the issue underlines the growing tension between defamation law, free speech, and the role of intermediaries such as social media platforms in regulating content.
Conclusion
The takedown of Adani-related content, coupled with the government’s notices to platforms, has raised fresh questions about the balance between protecting reputations and safeguarding press freedom. For many journalists and creators, the lack of an avenue to contest takedown orders is the most alarming aspect of the case. The Editors Guild’s intervention signals that the debate over censorship and accountability in India’s media ecosystem is far from over.