On Modi’s Birthday, 'Adani Video Takedown Day' Sparks Fury: What’s Behind the Controversy?

New Delhi – In a move that has ignited widespread criticism and debates over freedom of expression, the Indian Ministry of Information and Broadcasting (MIB) has ordered the removal of 138 YouTube videos and 83 Instagram posts allegedly containing defamatory content about the Adani Group. The directive, issued on September 16, cites an ex-parte interim injunction from a Delhi court in a defamation suit filed by Adani Enterprises Limited (AEL). Critics argue this represents an unprecedented level of censorship, while supporters see it as a necessary step to curb unverified allegations against one of India's largest conglomerates.

The controversy stems from a September 6 court order by Senior Civil Judge Anuj Kumar Singh at the Rohini District Courts. The order was granted without hearing from the defendants, targeting nine named journalists and organizations, including Paranjoy Guha Thakurta, Ravi Nair, Abir Dasgupta, Ayaskant Das, Ayush Joshi, and foreign-linked entities like Adani Watch and Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP). It also includes a "John Doe" clause, allowing the restraint to extend to unnamed parties. The court empowered AEL to compile and submit additional URLs for takedown, requiring platforms to remove content within 36 hours without further judicial review until the case progresses.

This rolling blacklist mechanism has been described by legal experts as a "censorship pipeline," potentially allowing private entities to dictate content removal based on their interpretation of what constitutes "unverified" or "defamatory" material. The suit argues that the targeted content regurgitates allegations from the 2023 Hindenburg Research report, which accused the Adani Group of stock manipulation and accounting fraud – claims the group has consistently denied. India's Supreme Court previously gave Adani a clean chit in related matters, but no gag order was imposed on media discussions at that time.

Acting on this order, the MIB sent notices to a broader array of journalists, media outlets, and content creators. Prominent names include veteran journalist Ravish Kumar, YouTuber Dhruv Rathee, satirist Akash Banerjee (The DeshBhakt), Abhisar Sharma, Ajit Anjum, and outlets like Newslaundry, The Wire, and HW News. Newslaundry alone has been instructed to remove 42 videos from its YouTube channel, representing a significant portion of the total takedowns.

The content flagged for removal is diverse and not limited to investigative reports. It encompasses satirical sketches, political interviews, casual mentions of Adani in broader discussions, and even videos unrelated to direct allegations against the group. For instance, one targeted video features comedian Kunal Kamra discussing satire in general, with no explicit reference to Adani. Other examples include episodes from The News Minute hosted on Newslaundry's channel, such as "South Central" and "Let Me Explain," which touch on political meetings involving Adani but are not primarily defamatory. Interviews with opposition leaders like Sharad Pawar and Anil Deshmukh, where Adani's 2019 meeting with the Nationalist Congress Party (NCP) was discussed, are also on the list.

The MIB's letter warns of non-compliance consequences, giving recipients five days to "expunge/remove" the material. Platforms like YouTube and Instagram have been directed to enforce these removals, with some creators already receiving notices from the tech giants to self-delete or face forced takedown.

Journalist Ravish Kumar, a Magsaysay Award winner known for his critical reporting, highlighted the issue in a social media post, dubbing September 17 as "Adani Video Takedown Day" in India's history. His statement highlights the irony of the date coinciding with Prime Minister Narendra Modi's birthday, framing it as a symbolic assault on democratic values. Kumar's post has amplified the narrative of this being a targeted effort to silence dissent, especially given his past criticisms of corporate influence in media.

Social media has erupted in opposition, with hashtags like #AdaniCensorship, #AdaniVideoTakeDownDay and #PressFreedomUnderAttack trending on platforms including X (formerly Twitter). Users and influencers have labeled the orders as "narrative control" rather than reputation protection, drawing parallels to authoritarian tactics. One X post by investigative journalist Saurav Das detailed the "alarming" court order, garnering thousands of likes and reposts, emphasizing how it grants Adani "blanket liberty" for takedowns. Another user, Soumyajit pointed out the ex-parte nature of the order, noting that affected parties weren't even present in court, which received significant engagement.

A key question arising from this saga is the potential for a cascading effect: If a YouTuber creates content solely about these takedown orders – discussing the 138 videos and the MIB's role – could that video also face removal? Legal analysts suggest yes, under the John Doe clause, if Adani deems it defamatory or linked to the original allegations. This creates a chilling effect, where meta-discussions on censorship could themselves be censored, further stifling public discourse.

The full matter traces back to ongoing scrutiny of Adani's operations, intensified by the Hindenburg report and subsequent global investigations, including a Swiss court's freezing of $310 million linked to an alleged Adani frontman. While Adani has received regulatory clearances in India, the group's aggressive legal strategy – including this defamation suit – highlights tensions between corporate power and journalistic freedom.

As challenges mount in higher courts, including from affected journalists seeking to vacate the injunction, the outcome could set precedents for how India balances defamation laws with constitutional rights to free speech. Organizations like the Editors Guild of India and international watchdogs have called for restraint, warning that such orders undermine democracy's fourth estate.

In the words of one X user, "The Republic of Adani: 138 Videos, 83 Posts, Zero Democracy," this episode encapsulates fears of a shrinking space for accountability in Modi's India. With social media abuzz and legal battles looming, the takedown orders have not silenced the debate but amplified it, raising profound questions about who controls the narrative in the world's largest democracy.