The Calcutta High Court on October 26, 2026, ordered social media platforms to remove a documentary titled The Friendship Files: How Modi and Adani Stole India, following a defamation suit filed by Adani Enterprises Limited against entrepreneur Sabeer Bhatia and others.
Justice Aryak Dutt’s interim injunction restrains the publication, uploading and sharing of the video, including specified clips and substantially identical reproductions, until January 31, 2027, or further orders, whichever comes first. YouTube, X and Instagram have been directed to restrict access to the specified material and preserve relevant digital records.
Adani Enterprises alleges that the documentary contains false and damaging claims, while the court has clarified that its order does not prevent constructive criticism or fair reporting outside the disputed material. The case remains pending, leaving questions about the balance between reputational protection and freedom of expression unresolved.
Legal Battle
The injunction followed a petition by Adani Enterprises seeking to prevent further circulation of the 36-minute documentary and claim damages for alleged defamation. Uploaded on October 9, 2026, by Bhatia in collaboration with the channel Shadow Citizens, the video discusses the relationship between Prime Minister Narendra Modi and industrialist Gautam Adani.
According to reporting by Bar and Bench, the documentary made allegations concerning matters including alleged links to narcotics smuggling, terror funding and the treatment of a farmer. The court observed that the imputations it examined were not substantiated by the authorities cited in the proceedings. Adani Enterprises argued that the video presented false allegations, omitted relevant facts and damaged its reputation.
The company’s counsel also maintained that the right to reputation is protected under Article 21 of the Constitution. In its order, the court directed the respondents to remove the specified video and covered reproductions from accounts, channels and pages under their control.
The platforms must also disable access to listed URLs and associated reposts, shares and other engagements through which the material remains accessible. They have further been directed to preserve account registration details, subscriber information, internet protocol logs and access records, and to provide identifying information about certain account holders in a sealed cover. The respondents must file their replies within four weeks of receiving the petition.
Wider Context
The High Court’s intervention comes amid earlier efforts to restrict the documentary’s circulation. According to Hindustan Times, Mumbai Police issued notices concerning 24 X accounts that had shared the video, asking the platform to review the posts and take appropriate action.
The report said the notice followed a complaint alleging that the content was false, misleading and damaging to a company’s reputation. Maharashtra Navnirman Sena chief Raj Thackeray also said he had removed the documentary from his social media accounts after a request conveyed through Mumbai Police Commissioner Deven Bharti, while maintaining that he would continue raising concerns about monopolies and the concentration of economic power.
These developments illustrate how disputes over online content can extend beyond the original creator to people sharing or discussing it. However, the Calcutta High Court’s order draws an important distinction between the specific documentary and wider public debate. Justice Dutt clarified that the injunction does not restrain constructive criticism or fair reporting about Adani, the Adani Group or government policy, provided it is not carried out through the disputed video, its reproductions or the allegedly defamatory statements identified in the case.
The injunction is temporary and will remain in place until January 31, 2027, or further orders, whichever comes first. The matter is expected to return before the regular bench in January. The court’s intervention does not, by itself, amount to a final determination of the defamation allegations.
The Logical Indian’s Perspective
The case highlights a difficult but important question for a democracy: how can society protect individuals and businesses from potentially defamatory allegations while ensuring that powerful institutions remain open to public scrutiny? Reputation matters, and allegations involving serious wrongdoing should be supported by credible evidence rather than presented as established facts without adequate verification.
At the same time, legal restrictions on widely circulated content deserve careful public attention, particularly when the subject involves political leadership, major businesses and matters of public interest. The court’s clarification that fair reporting and constructive criticism remain permissible is therefore significant.
It reinforces the distinction between challenging specific disputed claims and shutting down broader discussion about corporate influence, government policy or accountability. As the proceedings continue, the parties should have a fair opportunity to present their evidence, and the legal process should determine the merits of the defamation claim.
Responsible journalism must neither amplify unverified allegations nor treat an interim court order as proof that every disputed claim is false. A healthy public conversation depends on evidence, transparency, due process and respect for differing views.
How can India protect reputations from potentially defamatory content while safeguarding the public’s right to question those in positions of power?
Also Read: IISER Pune Removes Umar Khalid’s Book From Library To Avoid ‘Misunderstanding Or Unrest’
