As Adani files defamation case, Calcutta HC blocks sharing of video about alleged ties with Modi

The court issued an interim restriction on a 36-minute documentary about alleged ties between Narendra Modi and Gautam Adani. It barred publication, uploading and sharing of the video. The order matters because online circulation can spread rapidly and may create reputational harm before a case is finally decided.

The court directed YouTube, X and Instagram to remove or disable access at every URL listed in Adani Enterprises’ petition. It also covered reposts, quote posts, shares and other engagements that kept the video accessible. The original video had already been disabled, but Sabeer Bhatia uploaded it again.

The restriction is temporary, not a final ruling on the defamation claim. It remains in force until January 31, when the matter is scheduled for another hearing. The court said evidence-backed criticism and truthful reporting remain allowed.

A defamation suit is a civil legal claim brought when someone says published statements damaged their reputation. It allows the claimant to seek remedies, which can include compensation or restrictions on circulation. The dispute matters here because the video targeted alleged relationships involving a major industrialist and the Prime Minister.

Adani Enterprises Limited sued Sabeer Bhatia and others involved in making The Friendship Files: How Modi and Adani Stole India. The company sought to stop circulation of the 36-minute documentary and filed a claim valued at Rs 50 crore. The video made allegations about alleged close ties between Modi and Adani.

The court did not finally decide the defamation claim in this order. It noted that the allegations were not substantiated by any authority and that the presentation could cause continuing reputational harm. Bhatia rejected the claimed value of his own reputation, saying he would value it at Rs 0.

The case combines a large financial claim with a relatively short online film. Adani Enterprises Limited filed a defamation suit seeking Rs 50 crore. The amount represents the alleged damage claimed in the case, while the court’s order focused on controlling the documentary’s continuing circulation.

The restricted video was 36 minutes long. Called The Friendship Files: How Modi and Adani Stole India, it was uploaded on October 9 to Sabeer Bhatia’s YouTube channel and also posted on X. The documentary concerned alleged close ties between Prime Minister Narendra Modi and industrialist Gautam Adani.

Bhatia responded by saying Adani had valued damage to his reputation at Rs 50 crore, but he would value it at Rs 0. The court’s immediate action was not a damages award. It disabled access and ordered preservation of account information while the case continues toward its January 31 hearing.

The court’s concern was not simply that the documentary criticised powerful people. It focused on how the film framed its claims. Justice Aryak Dutt said it was not a news report and described it as a dramatised narrative. That distinction mattered because the video appeared to present its allegations with the authority of factual reporting.

The title, The Friendship Files: How Modi and Adani Stole India, was described as insinuating theft. The court also pointed to narration and visuals presented as factual. It said the allegations made in the video were not substantiated by any authority. The original video was disabled, but Bhatia uploaded it again.

The court said constructive criticism or truthful reporting about Adani or government policy, when backed by evidence, was not barred. Its temporary restriction therefore targeted this documentary’s circulation while the defamation dispute proceeds, rather than declaring all criticism of the parties unlawful.

When a platform disables a listed URL, users should no longer be able to access the video through that address. The order also reaches the surrounding online pathways that could keep the same material available. This matters because a video can continue spreading even after its original upload is removed.

The court directed YouTube, X and Instagram to remove or disable access to the documentary at each URL identified in Adani Enterprises’ petition. Platforms must also disable reposts, quote posts, shares and other engagements through which the video remained accessible at those URLs. The order responds to the court’s concern about rapid online circulation.

This does not necessarily mean every copy everywhere is permanently erased. It means the named platforms must act on the listed locations and related access routes under the order. The restriction lasts until January 31, when the court will hear the matter again and consider the dispute further.

Subscriber details, IP addresses and access logs are digital records linked to online accounts and activity. Preserving them prevents potentially relevant information from disappearing while the legal dispute continues. The order matters because the video appeared across several platforms and some account owners could not be identified.

The court directed YouTube, X and Instagram to preserve subscriber and registration details, along with IP and access logs, for the accounts and URLs named in Adani Enterprises’ petition. It also ordered the platforms to submit basic subscriber details for unidentified account owners in a sealed cover within two weeks.

These records can help connect accounts with people and show how listed URLs were accessed or circulated. The article does not say what further action will follow from the records. For now, the preservation order supports the ongoing defamation case, whose next hearing is scheduled for January 31.

Courts balance expression and reputation by examining both the content and the way it is presented. Public figures and powerful organisations can face criticism, but published claims may still trigger legal protection when they are presented as facts and allegedly cause serious harm. The balance matters because suppressing criticism can affect public debate.

Here, the court expressly said constructive criticism and truthful reporting about Adani or government policy, backed by evidence, were not barred. At the same time, it described the documentary as a dramatised narrative and said its allegations were not substantiated by any authority. It also noted the possibility of rapid online spread and uncompensated reputational harm.

The order is temporary and does not finally resolve the defamation claim. It restricts circulation until January 31 while preserving platform records. The next hearing may determine how the dispute develops, but the article gives no final outcome.