In a courtroom moment that quietly underscored the boundaries of free expression and judicial overreach, the Delhi High Court refused to entertain a contempt plea aimed at Himal Southasian, a magazine that ruffled feathers with its reporting on the transfer of elephants to Anant Ambani’s wildlife venture, Vantara.
The Court was unambiguous: Himal Southasian had violated no court directive—because no such directive existed.
At the heart of the controversy was a March 2024 article titled “The costs of Reliance’s wildlife ambitions”, which questioned how animals, including healthy and endangered species, were being brought to the lavishly funded Greens Zoological Rescue and Rehabilitation Centre. The report did not sit well with entities like the Radhe Krishna Temple Elephant Welfare Trust, who—months later—pointed to prior judicial criticism of the article as reason enough for it to be pulled.
Justice Anish Dayal, however, didn’t see it that way.
“There is no direction that has been disobeyed,” the judge made clear in the May 19 ruling, signaling that criticism does not equate to a takedown order, and disapproval doesn’t translate to contempt.
This latest filing was part of a long-running legal skirmish sparked initially by concerns over the high-profile Ambani-Merchant wedding, which some believed posed a threat to animals near Reliance Greens. That worry was previously dismissed by the Court as speculative, though a High-Powered Committee was given oversight to ensure ethical treatment of the animals.
The report in question had earlier drawn ire from the Bench for what it termed “sensationalism” and its strong remarks about the Committee’s conduct. But none of that, the Court stressed, was tantamount to a judicial command.
Still, the Trust and Zoo interpreted the Court’s disapproval of the article as a silent directive for its removal. When the article remained online, they returned with a contempt plea—one the High Court found to be entirely without teeth.
There was no violation, no defiance, no contempt—only a presumption, and that wasn’t enough.
Thus, the magazine and its editor Roman Gautam walk away with no order to retract, and perhaps with something more enduring: a small, silent reaffirmation that press freedom doesn’t crumble at the hint of institutional discomfort.