Can’t watch the Modi-Adani documentary? Read these reports instead

The Calcutta High Court ordered social media platforms to remove Friendship Files: How Modi and Adani Stole India after Adani Enterprises Limited filed a Rs 50-crore defamation suit. The company sued tech entrepreneur Sabeer Bhatia and unknown others over the documentary’s making and circulation.

The order was a pre-trial injunction, meaning the court acted before a full trial. It was also issued without hearing the other side. Bhatia later clarified that he did not make the film. He only circulated it, and no producer has publicly claimed responsibility.

The documentary remains available online despite the order. It was even posted on the X account of a prominent Opposition politician. The article argues that viewers could instead consult the published reporting behind many of its claims, including reports on land, coal, airports, and the Adani Group’s growth.

A pre-trial injunction is a temporary court order made before a lawsuit reaches trial. It can require someone to stop publishing, distributing, or doing something while the legal dispute continues. Courts use such orders to prevent possible harm before a final decision.

The unusual feature here was timing and procedure. The Calcutta High Court ordered platforms to take down the documentary before hearing the other side. The defendants therefore had no initial opportunity to explain their role, challenge the allegations, or argue that the film should remain available.

That does not decide whether the documentary is defamatory. It only controls access while the case proceeds. The article notes that Bhatia said he merely circulated the film, not made it. The order also did not fully erase the documentary, because copies continued circulating online.

Narendra Modi was Gujarat’s chief minister when the article describes Gautam Adani developing close ties with him. Gautam Adani is identified as India’s richest man and the figure behind Adani Enterprises, the group’s flagship firm. Sabeer Bhatia is described as a tech entrepreneur.

The dispute began when Adani Enterprises filed a Rs 50-crore defamation suit against Bhatia and unknown others over the documentary Friendship Files: How Modi and Adani Stole India. The company sought to stop its circulation. The court then ordered social media platforms to take it down.

Bhatia later clarified that he did not produce the documentary. He said he only circulated it, while nobody publicly claimed credit for making it. Modi and Adani are the central figures discussed in the film, but the article focuses on the legal action brought by Adani Enterprises.

The article presents the Adani Group as a highly diversified business empire. Its activities include coal, power, airports, ports, city gas, and food. It also describes the group as India’s largest private coal miner and largest private power producer.

Its scale grew through several major assets and projects. The group acquired rights to manage six airports in 2019 and later acquired Mumbai airport from the GVK Group in 2020. Earlier, it developed a port and special economic zone at Mundra, using land allotted by the Gujarat government at reported rates between Re 1 and Rs 32 per square metre.

Growth was rapid before the 2019 elections. Scroll’s data compilation found that the group’s number of projects doubled over five years. The article links that expansion to government decisions across sectors, rather than to one isolated policy or business move.

The article argues that Adani’s coal and energy empire grew through a series of government decisions. It specifically rejects the documentary’s claim that one 2015 coal-mine auction decision explains the group’s dominance. Scroll had covered several decisions across the previous decade.

For ports and land, the Gujarat government allotted Mundra project land at between Re 1 and Rs 32 per square metre. The article contrasts this with higher rates paid by Tata Motors, Ford India, and Maruti Suzuki. For airports, the group won rights to manage six airports in 2019, despite objections from the finance ministry and NITI Aayog.

The group then acquired Mumbai airport from GVK two months after the Central Bureau of Investigation filed a case against GVK’s chairman in 2020. The article also describes Adani’s earlier investment push in Gujarat and its expansion across coal, power, ports, airports, city gas, and food.

When a court orders content removed before hearing the accused, platforms may have to block or delete it while the case continues. This can limit public access immediately, even though the court has not finally decided whether the material is defamatory or unlawful.

The Calcutta High Court’s order targeted social media platforms after Adani Enterprises filed its defamation suit. Bhatia had not yet presented his clarification when the order was issued. He later said he had circulated the film but had not made it, creating a factual distinction relevant to the dispute.

Such orders may not erase information from the internet. The article says the documentary continued floating online despite the takedown order. A prominent Opposition politician’s X account carried it, showing how reposting and redistribution can keep removed material accessible.

Defamation is a claim that published material harms a person or company’s reputation through allegedly false or damaging statements. Copyright infringement is different: it concerns the unauthorised use of protected expression, such as video, text, images, or recordings. One publication can potentially raise both issues.

Here, Adani Enterprises pursued defamation claims over the documentary’s content. The article also questions whether its makers considered copyright liability, because much of the film drew on reports and material gathered by journalists. The documentary discussed Adani’s political proximity, land allotments, coal empire, airport acquisitions, and rapid expansion.

Using known facts does not automatically settle either legal question. A documentary could make defamatory claims even while citing real reporting, and it could reproduce protected clips or words without permission. The article does not report a copyright lawsuit, but it identifies copyright infringement as a possible concern alongside defamation.