Sabeer Bhatia Sued By Adani Over Video On Ties With Modi
India-West News Desk
NEW DELHI – Indian American entrepreneur Sabeer Bhatia is being sued by Adani Enterprises Limited for defamation over his online viral video examining the relationship between the Modi government and the Adani Group. The Calcutta High Court has ordered the video and its materially identical reproductions blocked until January 31, 2027.
“Adani is suing me for Rs 50 crore, apparently valuing the damage to his reputation at that amount,” Bhatia posted on X after the court issued its interim injunction October 26. He argued that wealth allegedly acquired through wrongdoing did not confer credibility or reputation, adding, “My valuation of that reputation? Rupee Zero.”
Justice Aryak Dutt restrained Bhatia and other respondents from publishing, republishing, uploading, sharing or otherwise disseminating the video, its clips, excerpts, shortened versions or materially identical reproductions. The court also directed the removal of the content from accounts, channels and pages owned or controlled by the respondents.
The order followed a civil defamation suit filed by Adani Enterprises, which sought monetary compensation for alleged damage to its reputation and goodwill and the removal of the video from social media platforms.
The court said the video contained serious factual allegations against the Adani Group, including claims of links to narcotics smuggling associated with terror funding and of procuring police violence and the false prosecution of a farmer. It noted that no material presented before it established that any authority had made findings supporting the allegations.
The court characterized the video as a dramatized narrative rather than a news report or an account of proceedings, noting that its title, “How Modi and Adani Stole India – The Friendship Files,” expressly accused the group of theft in concert with a public office holder. Its narration and visuals presented the allegations as factual, the court said.
The injunction is limited to the identified video and its clips and materially identical reproductions. The court clarified that it does not prohibit constructive criticism, truthful reporting or evidence-backed commentary concerning the Adani Group or government policies.
It said online content could spread rapidly through reposts and re-uploads, causing reputational injury that monetary damages might not adequately compensate. Delaying relief until the respondents could be heard could defeat the purpose of the order, the court observed.
The lawsuit names Bhatia, creator of the YouTube channel Bcubed, his X account, major social media platforms including YouTube, X and Instagram, and unidentified individuals allegedly coordinating the video’s circulation.
Bhatia uploaded the 36-minute documentary to YouTube October 9 in collaboration with the channel Shadow Citizens and also posted it on X. The video attracted attention across the platforms before access to the original YouTube upload was disabled in India following a government complaint, according to Adani Enterprises’ submissions.
The company told the court that it had received enquiries from investors and others after the video’s publication. It argued that its reputation was integral to its rights under the Constitution.
The dispute has also drawn attention to efforts to restrict the video’s circulation. Maharashtra Navnirman Sena chief Raj Thackeray posted on October 25 that Mumbai Police Commissioner had conveyed a request for him to take down the video after he shared it online.
“Sabeer Bhatia’s documentary received such an overwhelming response that it was only natural for those in power to grow anxious, fearing that their secrets might be exposed,” Thackeray wrote on X. He said the request to remove it had come through the police commissioner and that his post had received 4.8 million views on X alone.
Bhatia, meanwhile, has continued to challenge the lawsuit publicly. Questioning why Adani Enterprises chose Kolkata to file the case, he also argued that the dispute exposed broader problems with accountability and the concentration of power.
Bhatia also questioned why criticism had provoked a strong response when it turned to questions about the prime minister’s sources of funding.
