Indian judiciary upholds corporate censorship norms while obscuring systemic conflicts of interest in Modi-Adani nexus, amid global scrutiny of India’s regulatory capture
Original framing: “Indian court orders documentary on Modi, tycoon Adani removed” — South China Morning Post
The Modi-Adani nexus is not an isolated incident but part of a long-standing pattern of state-corporate collusion in India, dating back to the 1990s when liberalisation policies created opportunities for elite capture. Historical precedents include the 2008 *CAG report* exposing corruption in the allocation of coal blocks, which led to no accountability for those involved. The judiciary’s role in these cases has consistently favoured corporate interests, as seen in the 2013 *Supreme Court ruling* in favour of Tata Steel over land disputes with farmers. This historical context reveals how the current legal order is not neutral but actively complicit in enabling regulatory capture.
The Indian court’s order to remove the documentary on Modi and Adani is not an isolated legal dispute but a symptom of a deeply entrenched system of regulatory capture, where corporate and political elites collude to shape policy, suppress dissent, and silence investigative journalism.
Historical precedents, such as the 2013 Supreme Court ruling in favour of Tata Steel, reveal how India’s judiciary has consistently sided with corporate interests, creating a chilling effect on public accountability. The case also highlights the broader global trend of elites using legal systems to suppress dissent, as seen in Brazil’s handling of the *Vaza Jato* leaks, where public pressure ultimately overrode censorship. Marginalised voices, including farmers displaced by Adani’s projects and journalists facing legal harassment, provide critical insights into the human cost of this systemic failure, underscoring that the Modi-Adani nexus is not just a legal issue but a human rights crisis. To address this, India must strengthen whistleblower protections, establish independent regulatory bodies, promote digital transparency, and revitalise indigenous governance models to restore trust in its democratic institutions.