Representative image. Biswarup Ganguly, CC BY 3.0, Wikimedia Commons
Why it matters
The order reaches beyond the video's maker: it requires removal of copies shared by people who are not part of the case, before a full trial. The court limited the ban to this video and its copies and said criticism and fair reporting are not barred.
The Calcutta High Court has ordered that an Adani video, a YouTube film titled “How Modi and Adani Stole India: The Friendship Files”, be taken down from YouTube, X and Instagram, and has barred Bhatia, the platforms and anyone acting for them from sharing it until 31 January 2027. Justice Aryak Dutt passed the interim order on 26 October 2026 in a defamation suit filed by Adani Enterprises Limited against Sabeer Bhatia, who runs the YouTube channel “Bcubed (Breaking Boundaries with Sabeer Bhatia)”, and the three platforms.
The order is temporary and was passed before the other side was fully heard. It records lawyers for Adani Enterprises and for YouTube at the hearing, and no submission on behalf of Bhatia. The order and the LiveLaw report read by NewsPlainly do not include a response from him.
What the Adani video order says
According to the company’s case, as recorded in the High Court order, the video runs about 36 minutes and was uploaded on 9 October 2026 on Bhatia’s channel together with another channel, “Shadow Citizens”, and posted on his X account. By that day it had about 46,134 views on YouTube and around 40,000 on X, the company said.
The original YouTube upload has since been blocked in India, apparently on a government complaint under the 2021 IT Rules, the rules that tell online platforms when to take content down. But the company told the court that copies kept circulating, and listed them: 3 on YouTube, 30 on X and 6 on Instagram, or 39 links in all by NewsPlainly’s count. It also said Bhatia had reposted the video on X on 22 October, after the original was blocked.
Adani Enterprises argued that the statements in the video are false and that Bhatia left out material facts, including premiums the company paid for several land projects. It said it had received questions from investors, including one dated 12 October. Its lawyers told the court the company was not trying to stop criticism of government policy, business concentration or its own business.
Why the court granted an injunction before trial
The order notes that an injunction before trial in a defamation case touching matters of public interest must be granted with great caution. Justice Dutt cited the Supreme Court’s 2024 ruling in the Bloomberg and Zee case, which says such orders should be rare, must consider the public’s right to know and the chilling effect on speech, and are meant for content that is prima facie (on first look) malicious or plainly false.
The judge said this case met that test, for now, and gave five reasons:
- the video is not a news report but “a dramatized narrative” whose title accuses the group of theft and whose narration is presented as fact;
- it makes serious allegations of criminal conduct against the group as statements of fact, and nothing placed before the court showed any finding by any authority to back them;
- the original upload had already been blocked in India on a government complaint;
- the repost after that block showed, at first look, a lack of good faith;
- the video repeatedly names Adani and the Adani Group.
All of these are prima facie views, the order says, and the case will be argued in full later.
What the Adani video order bars, and what it does not
| Barred until 31 January 2027 | Not barred |
|---|---|
| Publishing or sharing the video, clips, short versions or near-identical copies, by Bhatia, the platforms and those acting for them | Constructive criticism of Adani Enterprises or the Adani Group |
| Making the same allegations listed in the company’s petition | Fair, evidence-based reporting on the group or on government policy |
| Ads or revenue sharing on the listed links | Anything not made through this video or its copies |
YouTube, X and Instagram must remove or disable all 39 listed links and the reposts and shares that keep them visible. Five of the X entries were account pages rather than single posts, so the company has to send the exact post links first. The platforms must also keep upload and access logs for those accounts and give the court, in a sealed cover, basic details of account holders who cannot be identified from the list.
The Calcutta High Court order also affects people who are not parties to the case: several accounts on the list belong to them, the judge noted, and the directions apply to those specific links.
NewsPlainly reported earlier on another court ruling on online content-blocking rules.
What happens next in the Adani Enterprises suit
- Within two weeks of receiving the order: YouTube, X and Instagram file affidavits listing every link removed, with dates and times, and the sealed-cover details.
- Within four weeks of service: Bhatia and the other respondents file their replies.
- Two weeks after that: Adani Enterprises files its answer.
- January 2027: the application is listed for hearing before the regular bench; the interim order runs until 31 January 2027 or until the court changes it.
The main suit, for damages for defamation and a permanent injunction, continues separately. The company may also add the unidentified uploaders as parties once YouTube discloses who one of them is, as the order directs.
Frequently asked questions
What did the Calcutta High Court order on the Adani video?
On 26 October 2026 it barred the sharing of the video "How Modi and Adani Stole India: The Friendship Files" and ordered YouTube, X and Instagram to remove 39 listed links, until 31 January 2027.
Who filed the case?
Adani Enterprises Limited filed a defamation suit against Sabeer Bhatia, whose channel posted the video, and against YouTube, X, Instagram and two unidentified uploaders.
Has Sabeer Bhatia responded?
The order records no submission on his behalf, and the material NewsPlainly read did not include a response. He has four weeks from service to file a reply.