Hotmail co-founder is facing a ₹50 crore defamation suit filed by Adani Enterprises over a documentary examining the relationship between Prime Minister Narendra Modi and billionaire .
The Calcutta High Court has ordered social media platforms, including YouTube, X and Meta-owned Instagram, to remove the 36-minute documentary, titled The Friendship Files: How Modi and Adani Stole India, and its specified reproductions. The court has also restrained Bhatia from disseminating the video, Bar and Bench reported.
The interim injunction, issued by Justice Aryak Dutt, will remain in force until January 31, 2027, or until further orders. The case is expected to be heard again in January.
Adani Enterprises alleged that the documentary contained false and defamatory claims and omitted material facts. The company told the court that the content had prompted inquiries from some investors.
Bhatia, who is based in the US, has disputed the action against him. In a post on X, he said the lawsuit seeks ₹50 crore in damages and maintained that the documentary had struck a nerve.
The dispute centres on the documentary The Friendship Files, which Bhatia uploaded on October 9 in collaboration with a channel called Shadow Citizens. The film uses archival footage to trace the relationship between Modi and Adani, both of whom hail from Gujarat.
It also raises questions about Adani’s successful bid for six airports in 2019 following a change in government rules. Critics have alleged that the change favoured the Adani Group, a charge similar to allegations raised by the opposition Congress party.
The Adani Group has denied such allegations. The government has maintained that all regulations were followed and that there was no favouritism.
In its legal challenge, Adani Enterprises argued that the documentary presented false allegations and created a narrative against the company by suppressing material facts. It also said its action was not intended to prevent legitimate criticism of government policy or business concentration.
According to the court order, the company argued that the allegations had harmed its reputation and that continued circulation of the video could cause further damage.
The court described the film as a dramatised narrative rather than a news report or an account of legal proceedings.
“The impugned video is not a news report or an account of proceedings,” the court said, according to Bar and Bench.
Justice Aryak Dutt observed that allegations suggesting the Adani Group was complicit in, or shielded from accountability for, narcotics smuggling linked to terror funding or police violence against a farmer were not substantiated by any authority.
The court also noted that the original video had already been disabled but was subsequently uploaded again by Bhatia. It said this prima facie indicated a lack of good faith.
The court ordered the removal of the specified video, clips, excerpts and materially identical reproductions from the relevant accounts and platforms. It also directed social media platforms to disable access to the identified content and preserve relevant account and access records.
However, the court clarified that its order does not prevent constructive criticism or fair reporting on the Adani Group or government policy, provided it is not disseminated through the disputed video, its reproductions or the specified defamatory statements.
“Constructive criticism or truthful reporting on the petitioner or on Government policy, backed by evidence, is not barred. Online content spreads quickly through reposts and re-uploads, and the injury to reputation from continued republication cannot be adequately compensated in money. If the order is not passed now, its purpose will be defeated by further dissemination before the respondents [Bhatia and others] can be heard,” the court said.
The injunction is interim in nature. The court’s observations at this stage do not amount to a final determination of the defamation allegations.
Bhatia responded to the legal action through posts on X, challenging the damages sought by Adani Enterprises.
On Tuesday, he wrote: “Adani is suing me for ₹50 crore, apparently valuing the damage to his reputation at that amount. I contend that wealth acquired through alleged wrongdoing does not confer credibility or reputation. My valuation of that reputation? ₹0. And if the reputational damage is zero, the compensation should be zero. ₹50 crore demanded. ₹0 deserved.”
Adani is suing me for ₹50 crore, apparently valuing the damage to his reputation at that amount.
I contend that wealth acquired through alleged wrongdoing does not confer credibility or reputation.
My valuation of that reputation? ₹0.
And if the reputational damage is zero, the compensation should be zero.
₹50 crore demanded. ₹0 deserved.
In an earlier post, Bhatia wrote, “Truth is on my side”.
He also said: “I believe the documentary has rattled Adani Enterprises Limited and struck a nerve at the highest levels,” he wrote.
The company, meanwhile, has argued that the film contains false allegations and that its legal action is directed at the disputed content rather than legitimate criticism of its business or government policy.
The documentary circulated across social media platforms and was shared by political opponents of Modi, who said it reflected allegations they had previously raised about the relationship between the prime minister and the industrialist, Reuters reported.
Earlier, Maharashtra politician Raj Thackeray shared the film on his X account, where it garnered 4.8 million views, according to the Reuters report. He subsequently removed it, saying he had done so at the request of the Mumbai police commissioner.
Trinamool Congress MP Mahua Moitra also shared the documentary on October 11. On Monday night, she wrote on X: “I posted this on Oct 11th. It is still on my timeline so do watch it,” she wrote on X on Monday night.
Before the defamation suit, Maharashtra police issued a takedown notice to Bhatia on October 19, stating that the content “made serious unsubstantiated allegations”.
The interim order requires the specified content to be removed from the relevant platforms and prevents its further circulation by the respondents. The matter is expected to return to court on January 31, 2027, or as directed by the court.
The case will examine the allegations made by Adani Enterprises and the responses of the defendants. The interim order does not constitute a final ruling on the merits of the defamation suit.
The court has also made clear that its directions do not amount to a blanket ban on constructive criticism of the Adani Group or government policy, or on fair reporting supported by evidence.
