Hotmail co-founder Sabeer Bhatia faces ₹50 crore Adani defamation suit over Modi documentary: What is the case?

The case concerns The Friendship Files: How Modi and Adani Stole India, a 36-minute documentary uploaded by Sabeer Bhatia with Shadow Citizens. Adani Enterprises says the film contains false allegations, omits important facts, and creates a damaging narrative about the company and its relationship with Prime Minister Narendra Modi.

The documentary uses archival footage and examines the pair’s Gujarat connections. It also questions Adani’s successful bid for six airports in 2019, after government rules changed. Critics have alleged that the change favoured the Adani Group, while the group and government deny wrongdoing or favouritism.

Adani Enterprises filed a ₹50 crore defamation suit and sought urgent restrictions on circulation. The Calcutta High Court ordered platforms to remove the video and specified copies, and restrained Bhatia from disseminating it. The order is temporary, and the court has not finally decided whether the allegations are defamatory or true.

An interim injunction is a temporary restriction issued while a legal dispute is still pending. It is designed to prevent possible harm from continuing before the court can hear all arguments and reach a final decision. It does not itself prove that the claimant will ultimately win.

The Calcutta High Court ordered YouTube, X and Meta-owned Instagram to remove the 36-minute documentary, clips, excerpts, and materially identical reproductions from identified accounts. It also restrained Bhatia from disseminating the video. The platforms must disable access to the specified content and preserve relevant account and access records.

The order will remain in force until January 31, 2027, or until further orders. The court said continued online republication could worsen reputational injury because content spreads quickly. It also clarified that evidence-based criticism and truthful reporting remain allowed if they do not use the disputed material or statements.

In India’s numbering system, ₹1 crore equals ₹10 million. Therefore, ₹50 crore equals ₹500 million, or ₹5,00,000. It is the amount Adani Enterprises is seeking as damages in its defamation case against Sabeer Bhatia.

The company argues that the documentary contains false allegations and suppresses material facts. It told the court that the content had prompted inquiries from some investors. Adani Enterprises also said the film harmed its reputation by presenting a narrative against the company and linking it to serious, unsubstantiated allegations.

The court focused on the speed and reach of online circulation. It said continued republication could cause further reputational injury and that such harm might not be adequately compensated with money later. That reasoning supported the temporary removal order, although the court has not finally determined the company’s defamation claims.

The documentary traces the relationship between Prime Minister Narendra Modi and billionaire Gautam Adani, who both hail from Gujarat. It uses archival footage and presents what the court called a dramatised narrative. Its title is The Friendship Files: How Modi and Adani Stole India.

One focus is Adani’s successful bid for six airports in 2019. The film raises questions about the bid after a change in government rules. Critics have alleged that the change favoured the Adani Group, an allegation also raised by the opposition Congress party. The article does not establish that claim as fact.

The Adani Group has denied the allegations. The government has said all regulations were followed and that there was no favouritism. Adani Enterprises separately argues that the documentary contains false allegations and omits material facts. The interim court order limits the disputed content but does not make a final ruling on the underlying claims.

If the documentary or materially identical copies continue spreading, the alleged reputational injury could become wider and harder to repair. The Calcutta High Court said online content travels quickly through reposts and re-uploads. It therefore viewed continued circulation as a risk that could defeat the purpose of temporary relief.

The court noted that the original video had already been disabled but was later uploaded again by Bhatia. It said this prima facie indicated a lack of good faith. The order requires platforms to remove specified videos, clips, excerpts, and identical reproductions, and to preserve relevant account and access records.

The current injunction remains in force until January 31, 2027, or further orders. Continued dissemination could lead to additional enforcement or expanded directions, although the source does not state a specific penalty. The case is expected to be heard again in January, when the court may consider the dispute further.

A defamation case is a legal dispute over whether statements damaged a person’s or company’s reputation and whether the publisher should be liable. The court examines the challenged content, its meaning, and the alleged harm. That process is different from immediately declaring every disputed claim true or false.

Here, Adani Enterprises says the documentary contains false allegations and omitted material facts. The court has issued an interim injunction because it considered continued circulation capable of causing further harm. It described the film as a dramatised narrative, not a news report or account of legal proceedings, and questioned whether some serious allegations were substantiated.

The order is expressly interim. The court’s observations at this stage do not amount to a final determination of the defamation allegations. Bhatia disputes the action and says the documentary struck a nerve. The final outcome will depend on later proceedings and the evidence considered by the court.

The distinction protects both reputation and legitimate public discussion. A court may restrict particular content when it sees a serious risk of unlawful harm, especially if the material contains unsupported allegations. But a broad ban on all criticism would also block public debate about companies, government decisions, and policy.

In this case, the court ordered removal of the specified documentary, clips, excerpts, and materially identical reproductions. It also identified statements involving serious allegations that, in its view, were not substantiated by any authority. The restriction is tied to that disputed video, its reproductions, and specified defamatory statements.

The court clarified that constructive criticism and truthful reporting backed by evidence are not barred. This means people may still discuss the Adani Group or government policy through material outside the prohibited content. The approach limits the alleged source of harm while preserving broader reporting and criticism during the pending case.