Case at a Glance
Adani Enterprises Limited filed a defamation suit over a roughly 36-minute video, uploaded on 9 October 2026, titled “How Modi and Adani Stole India The Friendship Files”. Applying the cautious test laid down by the Supreme Court in Bloomberg v. Zee, the Calcutta High Court found a prima facie exceptional case and granted an ad-interim injunction till 31 January 2027 or further orders. YouTube, X and Instagram were directed to remove or disable the listed URLs. The court made clear that constructive criticism and fair reporting about the company or Government policy are not restrained.
The plaintiff sued Sabeer Bhatia, who runs the YouTube channel “Bcubed” and the X account “@sabeer”, along with YouTube, X and Instagram and unidentified uploaders, seeking damages and permanent and mandatory injunctions. The suit concerned a video uploaded on 9 October 2026 which, as recorded in the order, had about 46,134 views on YouTube and about 40,000 on X.
The original YouTube upload was disabled in India after a government complaint under Rule 3(1)(d) of the IT Rules, 2021, but the video kept being re-uploaded on other channels, X accounts and Instagram reels; Schedule A to the plaint listed 3 YouTube, 30 X and 6 Instagram entries. The court recorded that Mr. Bhatia reposted the video on X on 22 October 2026, after the original was disabled. The plaintiff argued the statements were false, that material facts such as premium payments on land projects were suppressed, that investors had made enquiries, and that reputation is part of Article 21. It also argued that intermediaries must disable unlawful content under Section 79(3)(b) of the IT Act.
The Key Question Before the Court
When can a court grant a pre-trial injunction against online content alleged to be defamatory, given the public’s right to know and the risk of a chilling effect on speech?
Applying the Bloomberg v. Zee Test
Justice Aryak Dutt began with the principle that pre-trial injunctions in defamation cases involving public interest must be granted with great caution. Relying on Bloomberg Television Production Services India Private Limited v. Zee Entertainment Enterprises Limited, (2024) 03 SC CK 3070, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 426, the court noted that the public’s right to know and the chilling effect on free speech must be weighed, and interim relief is justified only in exceptional cases where the content is prima facie malicious or palpably false.
The court found the case prima facie exceptional for five reasons: the video was a dramatised narrative rather than a news report and its title imputed theft; its imputations were assertions of fact with nothing to show any authority had made such findings; the original upload had already been disabled on a government complaint; reposting after disablement suggested a lack of good faith; and the video repeatedly named the plaintiff and its group. It held the balance of convenience in the plaintiff’s favour but kept the restraint narrow — limited to the identified video, its clips, materially identical copies and the pleaded imputations. Because several Schedule A accounts belonged to non-parties, the directions were framed against specific URLs. The order records that the platform YouTube was represented virtually; no substantive submissions of the defendants are recorded, and these are interim, prima facie findings, not a final verdict on truth.
What the Court Actually Held
- An ad-interim injunction restrains publication or dissemination of the video, its clips or materially identical reproductions “till January 31, 2027 or until further orders, whichever is earlier.”
- Mr. Bhatia was directed to forthwith remove or cause removal of the impugned video.
- YouTube, X and Instagram must remove or disable access to the Schedule A URLs, preserve records and not run advertisements on the content.
- The order “does not restrain constructive criticism or fair reporting” on the plaintiff or Government policy, other than through the impugned video or its defamatory statements; the matter is listed in January 2027.
Why This Judgment Matters
- It is a live application of the Supreme Court’s Bloomberg v. Zee standard to creator-led video content on social media.
- It shows courts drafting URL-specific orders against platforms where re-uploads spread across accounts of non-parties.
- It draws a line between restraining specific alleged falsehoods and leaving general criticism and reporting free.
What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?
For Content Creators
- Presenting allegations as facts, in a dramatised format, without supporting findings or sources weighed against the creator here.
- Reposting content after it has been disabled on a government complaint was read as a sign of lack of good faith.
For Counsel
- Plead specific imputations, list exact URLs and show spread and harm (views, investor enquiries) when seeking interim relief.
- Frame prayers narrowly; the court expressly protected fair criticism, and overbroad gag requests may fail the Bloomberg test.
Key Takeaways
- Pre-trial defamation injunctions remain the exception, especially on matters of public interest.
- Interim relief needs content that is prima facie malicious or palpably false.
- Intermediaries can be directed to disable listed URLs, preserve records and stop monetisation.
- The findings are prima facie; the suit will be decided on evidence at trial.
Frequently Asked Questions
Did the Calcutta High Court decide that the video is defamatory?
Not finally. It granted an ad-interim injunction on prima facie findings. The suit and the interim application are still pending, with the matter listed in January 2027.
What is the Bloomberg v. Zee test?
Under that Supreme Court decision, as applied in this order, courts must weigh the public’s right to know and the chilling effect on speech, and grant interim injunctions against publications only in exceptional cases where content is prima facie malicious or palpably false.
Can people still criticise the company?
Yes. The order expressly says it does not restrain constructive criticism or fair reporting on the plaintiff or Government policy, apart from the impugned video and its defamatory statements.
Conclusion
The order balances reputation against free speech by targeting one identified video and its copies while expressly protecting criticism and reporting. It also shows how courts are adapting takedown directions to content that spreads across many accounts and platforms.
Practical takeaway: In online defamation cases, interim relief turns on showing the content is prima facie false or malicious, with specific URLs and narrowly framed prayers; creators should back factual claims with sources.
For more judgments, legal opinions and case analysis, visit courtkutchehry.com