No clear evidence of financial or reputational loss: Delhi Court to Adani

The court noted that Adani Enterprises had not provided clear evidence of its share value declining or its reputation being directly damaged due to Congress leader Jairam Ramesh’s remarks.

New Delhi: A Delhi court on Thursday questioned the Adani Group’s defamation case against Congress leader Jairam Ramesh, asking the company whether it could prove any actual harm caused by the statements made against it.

Hearing the preliminary arguments, the court noted that Adani Enterprises had not provided clear evidence of its share value declining or its reputation being directly damaged due to Ramesh’s remarks.

“You yourself are unsure whether you’ve been defamed. Have your shares dropped? Have you lost investors? Where is the material to show reputational injury?” the judge asked Adani’s counsel during the proceedings.

Adani-Hindenburg controversy
Earlier this year, the Adani Group took Jairam Ramesh to court, accusing him of defamation. The company argued that the Congress leader’s press conferences and social media posts about the Adani-Hindenburg controversy were not just political commentary but part of a deliberate attempt to damage its image.

Ramesh, who has repeatedly targeted the conglomerate, raised questions about its alleged proximity to the government and the financial irregularities flagged by US-based short-seller Hindenburg Research.

No concrete evidence of financial or reputational loss
Adani’s lawyer told the court that Ramesh’s words went far beyond healthy political criticism. According to the counsel, the statements were calculated to cast doubt on the group’s credibility in the eyes of both the public and investors.
However, the court pressed for concrete evidence to establish direct financial or reputational loss. “Merely saying your image has been harmed is not sufficient,” the court observed.

The judge also indicated that corporations, unlike individuals, must demonstrate measurable loss in cases of alleged defamation. “You are a listed company. Show us data, have your stocks plummeted specifically because of these statements? Has there been a withdrawal of contracts or partnerships?” the court asked.

Criticism cannot automatically be branded as defamation
Meanwhile, Ramesh’s counsel maintained that his client’s remarks were part of political speech and public interest commentary, fully protected under the law. Criticism of powerful corporations cannot automatically be branded as defamation, he argued.
The case has reignited discussions about corporate responsibility, the boundaries of political speech, and striking a balance between free speech and reputation.