The Delhi High Court is set to hear journalist Ravish Kumar's petition on Monday, September 22, against a Central government directive asking him to delete certain videos on his YouTube channel. These videos, said to contain defamatory remarks about the Adani Group, have sparked a heated debate over press freedom and state overreach.
Background
The story began with a civil defamation suit filed by Adani Enterprises Limited (AEL) in Rohini Courts earlier this month. On September 6, the trial court restrained a group of journalists along with unnamed individuals from publishing what it described as "defamatory" content about the company. Acting swiftly, the Union government on September 16 issued a communication directing Kumar and several other platforms to comply with the trial court’s order and take down their videos.
Kumar, who commands an audience of nearly 14 million subscribers on YouTube, claims this directive is nothing short of censorship. In his plea, filed through advocate Shantanu Derhgawen, he argued that the order,
"strikes at the very root of press freedom, which the Constitution protects as essential for democracy."
The Rohini court had earlier observed that AEL had shown a prima facie case, adding that further circulation of such videos could cause,
"irreparable harm to its reputation and investor confidence."
On this basis, it allowed the company to approach online platforms for removal of alleged defamatory content.
But an appellate court later rolled back part of this sweeping restraint. On September 18, it lifted the gag on four journalists, stressing that blanket pre-publication bans were not legally sustainable. Still, the injunction continues against unnamed "John Doe" defendants, which means the broader chill on reporting remains.
Kumar has now asked the High Court to step in, declaring the government's directive unconstitutional and ultra vires. His petition says the executive cannot, without legal authority, enforce a private court’s interim order in such a manner.
"By acting as an enforcer of a civil dispute, the government has crossed a line that threatens democratic governance," the plea asserts.
The matter is listed before Justice Sachin Datta for hearing on Monday. The outcome will decide whether Kumar's content survives online or gets pulled down under state direction.
Case Title: Ravish Kumar vs Union of India