Calcutta HC: Sabeer Bhatia Adani Video Removal Ordered

• The Calcutta High Court ordered YouTube, X, and Instagram to remove a video titled “How Modi and Adani Stole India: The Friendship Files” created by Sabeer Bhatia.
• Adani Enterprises Limited filed a defamation suit, alleging the 36-minute video contained false imputations about narcotics smuggling and terror funding.
• The court found the video to be a "dramatized narrative" and prima facie malicious or palpably false, justifying an interim injunction.
• The ruling mandates platforms to preserve subscriber and access logs and will remain in effect until January 31, 2027, or further orders.
• This decision reinforces intermediary liability under Section 79(3)(b) of the IT Act 2000 and Rule 3(1)(d) of the IT Rules 2021 for removing unlawful content upon court direction.

The court's willingness to grant an interim injunction before a full trial, based on a prima facie assessment of malice or palpable falsehood, provides a powerful tool for individuals and organizations seeking to combat online defamation.

The Calcutta High Court has issued a significant directive compelling major social media platforms to remove a video titled “How Modi and Adani Stole India: The Friendship Files,” which was created and disseminated by entrepreneur Sabeer Bhatia. This interim injunction, handed down by a single-judge bench led by Justice Aryak Dutt, specifically targets YouTube, X (formerly Twitter), and Instagram, ordering them to disable access to or remove the specified URLs containing the contentious 36-minute video. The ruling marks a notable development in the ongoing Calcutta HC Sabeer Bhatia Adani video removal case, emphasizing the judiciary's role in addressing online content deemed defamatory.

Beyond the immediate removal, the court also mandated that these platforms preserve crucial data related to the identified accounts and URLs. This includes subscriber information, registration details, IP logs at the time of upload, and access logs. The interim injunction is set to remain in effect until January 31, 2027, or until further judicial orders are issued, whichever occurs sooner, providing a substantial period of relief for the plaintiff, Adani Enterprises Limited.

The legal action stems from a defamation suit initiated by Adani Enterprises Limited, a key entity within the Adani Group, seeking both monetary damages and permanent injunctive relief against Bhatia and other unnamed parties. The video, originally uploaded to the YouTube channel Bcubed on October 9, 2026, in collaboration with "Shadow Citizens," subsequently found its way onto Bhatia's X account and was widely circulated. It garnered significant attention, with 46,134 views on YouTube and approximately 40,000 views on X, before legal intervention.

Adani Enterprises contended that the video's title and narrative contained demonstrably false and defamatory accusations. These included serious allegations linking the Adani Group to narcotics smuggling, terror funding, and even orchestrating police violence and false prosecution against a farmer. The company further asserted that the video deliberately omitted material facts, such as premium payments for various land projects, and that its publication led to inquiries from investors and other stakeholders. While not seeking to stifle legitimate criticism of government policy or business practices, Adani Enterprises specifically targeted the disputed video, its reproductions, and the precise defamatory imputations outlined in their Adani Enterprises defamation suit India.

The court's decision was heavily influenced by the legal framework governing online content in India, particularly concerning intermediary liability. Adani Enterprises argued that the right to reputation is an intrinsic component of Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty. This fundamental right, they asserted, extends to protecting a company's standing from false and malicious attacks. Crucially, the company invoked Section 79(3)(b) of the Information Technology Act, 2000, read in conjunction with Rule 3(1)(d) of the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021.

These provisions establish that online intermediaries, such as YouTube, X, and Instagram, lose their "safe harbour" protections if they fail to remove or disable access to unlawful content after receiving actual knowledge or a formal court order. The court, after reviewing the evidence, found prima facie that the case warranted an injunction even before a full trial, categorizing the content as "malicious or palpably false." It specifically noted that the video was not a genuine news report or an objective account of proceedings, but rather a "dramatized narrative," thereby justifying the interim injunction online content India and underscoring the IT Act 2000 Section 79(3)(b) intermediary liability and Information Technology Rules 2021 Rule 3(1)(d) obligations for these platforms. This ruling sets a precedent for YouTube X Instagram content moderation order in similar cases.

This ruling from the Calcutta High Court carries significant implications for online content moderation and the legal responsibilities of social media platforms in India. It reinforces the principle that the right to reputation Article 21 Indian Constitution extends to corporate entities and can be protected through swift judicial intervention against content that is demonstrably false or malicious. The court's willingness to grant an interim injunction before a full trial, based on a prima facie assessment of malice or palpable falsehood, provides a powerful tool for individuals and organizations seeking to combat online defamation.

For legal professionals and compliance officers, this judgment serves as a crucial precedent. It clarifies the stringent obligations placed on intermediaries under Section 79(3)(b) of the IT Act 2000 and Rule 3(1)(d) of the IT Rules 2021, mandating the removal of unlawful content upon court direction. This judicial stance will undoubtedly influence strategies for addressing online defamation and shape future content moderation policies, particularly in cases where content is presented as factual but is, in reality, a "dramatized narrative" lacking journalistic integrity.

Lawyers and compliance officers should note this Calcutta High Court order as a significant precedent for obtaining swift interim injunctions against online content deemed prima facie malicious or palpably false. It reinforces the legal obligation of social media intermediaries under Section 79(3)(b) of the IT Act 2000 and Rule 3(1)(d) of the IT Rules 2021 to remove unlawful content upon court direction, impacting strategies for online defamation and content moderation.

Source: Original reporting via legal news outlets