Key Points

The Rohini Court directed the defendants — journalists Paranjoy Guha Thakurta, Ravi Nair, Abir Dasgupta, Ayaskanta Das, Ayush Joshi, the Bob Brown Foundation, Dreamscape Network International Pvt. Ltd., Getup Ltd., Domain Directors Pty Ltd., and “John Doe” parties — to refrain from publishing unverified, unsubstantiated, and ex facie defamatory reports about AEL.

It further directed the defendants to expunge the defamatory material from their respective articles or social media posts, failing which the intermediaries (such as Google, YouTube, X.com, etc.) have been ordered to remove the defamatory content.

Issuing summons to the defendants, the court directed them not to publish or circulate “unverified, unsubstantiated and ex facie defamatory reports about the plaintiff allegedly tarnishing the reputation of the plaintiff (AEL) till the next date of hearing".

In its suit, AEL claimed that the defendants, by aligning with anti-India interests, were continuously targeting its infrastructure and energy projects which are critical to the county’s infrastructure and energy security.

Advocate Vijay Aggarwal, appearing for AEL, argued that unchecked dissemination of baseless allegations had not only tarnished the company’s reputation but also caused irreparable harm to investors and adversely impacted India’s global brand image.

Aggarwal argued that the pattern of repeated and unverified allegations amounted to a “trial by media”, something the courts have repeatedly warned against. Concurring with the submissions, the court, in its order, noted that AEL had not been found guilty by any regulatory authority or court of law.

“As per the plaintiff, it faced regulatory and media scrutiny in 2023 from which it came out clean and has rebuilt market confidence through transparency, de-leveraging and consistent operation delivery. Therefore, the articles and posts which are defamatory are per se not fair reporting,” the Rohini Court said.

It observed that continual circulation of such prima facie defamatory articles and posts would cause irreparable harm to the company.

“If the reliefs sought by the plaintiff are denied, he shall suffer further loss of reputation which will be incalculable and may result in irreparable injury,” the order said.

“The articles and posts which are defamatory are per se not fair reporting. Also, such articles/posts seek to create sensationalism which may shape public perception and jeopardize the right of the plaintiff. Thus, there is a prima facie case in favour of the plaintiff,” it added.

The court clarified that the injunction order would not restrict fair and accurate reporting and the order will “not be construed to restrain any person from reporting about investigation and court proceedings… so long as it is fair and accurate reporting based on substantiated and verified material".

- IANS