Calcutta High Court Orders Social Media Sites To Remove Video Alleging Modi-Adani 'Stole India'

The Calcutta High Court has restrained the circulation of a YouTube video titled “How Modi and Adani Stole India: The Friendship Files”, holding that the case appeared to fall within the exceptional category of defamation cases warranting a pre-trial injunction.

YouTube, X and Instagram were directed to remove or disable access to the video at the specific URLs listed in the company's petition and to disable reposts, quote posts, shares and similar engagements through which the video remained accessible.

Justice Aryak Dutt, while passing an ad-interim injunction on October 26, observed that the video contained serious factual imputations against the Adani Group, including allegations of complicity in narcotics smuggling linked to terror funding and procuring police violence and false prosecution against a farmer. The Court noted that no material placed before it showed any finding by an authority to support these allegations.

The Court restrained the respondents from publishing, republishing, uploading, sharing or otherwise disseminating the video, its clips, excerpts, shortened versions or materially identical reproductions. The injunction will remain in force until January 31, 2027, or until further orders, whichever is earlier.

“The impugned video is not a news report or an account of proceedings. It is a dramatized narrative, whose title expressly imputes theft, and whose narration and visuals are represented as factual,” the Court observed.

The suit was filed by Adani Enterprises Limited against Sabeer Bhatia, stated to be the creator and operator of the YouTube channel “Bcubed (Breaking Boundaries with Sabeer Bhatia)” and the X account “@sabeer”, along with YouTube, X and Instagram and two unidentified persons allegedly involved in uploading and circulating the content.

According to the company, the approximately 36-minute video was uploaded on October 9, 2026, in collaboration with another YouTube channel, “Shadow Citizens”. It was also posted on Bhatia's X account. The company claimed that by the same day, the video had received 46,134 views on YouTube and around 40,000 views on X.

Adani Enterprises submitted that access to the original YouTube upload had subsequently been disabled in India following a government complaint under Rule 3(1)(d) of the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021. However, it alleged that the video continued to circulate through re-uploads, reposts and Instagram reels. The company further alleged that Bhatia reposted the video on X on October 22, after the original upload had been disabled.

The company contended that the statements in the video were false and that it had received enquiries from investors and others following its publication. It argued that its right to reputation was an integral part of Article 21 of the Constitution.

Senior Advocate Anirban Ray, appearing for Adani Enterprises, submitted that the company was not seeking to restrain constructive criticism of government policy, business concentration or its commercial activities generally. The relief sought was confined to the specific video, its reproductions and the allegedly defamatory imputations contained in it.

The company also argued that the social media platforms were required to remove or disable access to unlawful content pursuant to a court order under Section 79(3)(b) of the Information Technology Act, 2000, read with the relevant intermediary rules.

Court's observations

Justice Dutt acknowledged that pre-trial injunctions in defamation proceedings involving matters of public interest must be granted with great caution. Referring to the Supreme Court's judgment in Bloomberg Television Production Services India Private Limited v. Zee Entertainment Enterprises Limited, the Court noted that, apart from the tests of prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury, courts must consider the public's right to know and the chilling effect of injunctions.

The Court observed that such injunctions should be granted only in exceptional cases where the content appeared prima facie malicious or palpably false, with reasons recorded for granting the relief.

Finding a prima facie case for interim protection, the Court noted that the video presented serious allegations as facts and that the original upload had already been disabled in India following a government complaint. It also took note of the allegation that the video had subsequently been reposted by Bhatia, observing that this prima facie indicated a lack of good faith.

The Court further held that the balance of convenience favoured Adani Enterprises, as continued online republication could cause reputational injury that might not be adequately compensated through monetary damages.

“The restraint is confined to one identified video, its clips and its materially identical reproductions,” the Court clarified, adding that constructive criticism and truthful reporting supported by evidence would not be barred.

Directions to social media platforms

The Court directed the respondents to remove the video and its allegedly defamatory reproductions from accounts, channels and pages owned or controlled by them.

The platforms were also directed to preserve subscriber information, registration details, IP logs at the time of upload and access logs relating to the identified accounts and URLs. They were required to disclose, in a sealed cover, basic subscriber information concerning accounts whose holders could not be identified from the petition, by filing an affidavit within two weeks of communication of the order.

Additionally, the platforms were restrained from running advertisements on, serving advertisements against, or sharing revenue in respect of the identified URLs or the video containing the allegedly defamatory statements. They were directed to preserve records of any advertising revenue generated from the content.

The Court directed the platforms to inform Adani Enterprises of the identity of one of the unidentified respondents to enable the company to amend its plaint and serve the relevant documents.

The respondents were directed to file affidavits-in-opposition within four weeks of service, with Adani Enterprises permitted to file its reply within two weeks thereafter. The matter was directed to be listed before the regular bench in the monthly list of January 2027.

The Court clarified that its observations were prima facie and that the order did not restrain constructive criticism or fair reporting concerning Adani Enterprises, the Adani Group or government policy, except through the impugned video, its reproductions or the specified allegedly defamatory statements.