Adani Defamation Case: Mansa Court Convicts Journalist Ravi Nair, Awards 1-Year Jail

A magistrate court in Mansa, Gandhinagar (Gujarat) has convicted journalist Ravi Nair in a criminal defamation case brought by Adani Enterprises Ltd (AEL), imposing a one-year prison sentence and a monetary fine of ₹5,000.

The judgment was delivered on February 10, 2026, by Judicial Magistrate First Class at Mansa Damini Dixit after a full trial in which the company’s complaint alleging Nair made ‘scandalous, defamatory’ posts on X targeting Adani Group, as well as on adaniwatch.org, was upheld by the court.

Court found that the series of social media posts and articles published by Nair went beyond fair comment or legitimate criticism and constituted defamatory material that was “designed to undermine” the reputation of AEL and the larger Adani Group.

Court rejected arguments that such commentary was protected free speech, holding that the material had caused reputational harm.

"A person engaged in reporting or commentary is expected to be conscious of the responsibility accompanying such a role, particularly while making categorical imputations affecting the reputation of others," court said. 

The complaint, instituted under Section 190(1)(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, alleged that between October 2020 and July 2021, Nair published multiple posts from his X handle containing imputations that harmed the reputation of the complainant company. The company further alleged that articles published on the website “www.adaniwatch.org” carried distorted and defamatory narratives concerning its business practices, regulatory compliance and financial dealings.

Adani Enterprises Limited contended that the publications suggested undue political patronage, manipulation of environmental regulations, misuse of government agencies in allotment of public assets, financial over-leveraging and regulatory improprieties. According to the company, these statements were false, reckless and intended to damage its goodwill among investors, regulators and the public.

The complaint was filed through its authorised signatory, Anshul Rajendraprasad Saini, on the basis of a Board Resolution. During inquiry under Section 202 CrPC (corresponding to Section 224 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita), court examined witnesses and documentary material including copies of tweets, web articles and a certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act (corresponding to Section 63 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam) to support the admissibility of electronic records. Upon finding a prima facie case, process was issued.

During trial, the complainant examined three employees, including Saini, who deposed that they had accessed and read the tweets and articles and found them defamatory. The witnesses stated that the publications falsely portrayed the Adani Group as dependent on political favour and involved in regulatory manipulation. They also asserted that the material was widely circulated on social media.

Nair pleaded not guilty and challenged the complaint on several grounds. The defence argued that Adani Enterprises Limited was not a “person aggrieved” under Section 199 CrPC (corresponding to Section 222 of BNSS), as the tweets referred to the “Adani Group” and not specifically to the complainant company.

It was further contended that the Mansa court lacked territorial jurisdiction, that the Board Resolution authorising the complaint was defective, and that electronic evidence did not meet statutory requirements. The defence also argued that the tweets constituted fair comment and were published in good faith based on publicly available material.

Court rejected the maintainability objection, holding that under Explanation 2 to Section 499 IPC (corresponding to Section 356 of BNS), a company or association can be defamed. It observed that references to the “Adani Group” were capable of identifying the complainant as a principal constituent of the conglomerate. Court held that the complainant qualified as a “person aggrieved” within the meaning of Section 199 CrPC.

On jurisdiction, court relied on Section 179 CrPC, observing that in cases of digital publication, defamation is complete where the imputation is read and reputational injury ensues. It accepted the testimony that the tweets were accessed at Mansa and held that jurisdiction was properly invoked.

Addressing objections to electronic evidence, court found that the Section 65B certificate substantially complied with legal requirements and that there was no material to show fabrication or manipulation of the tweets.

On merits, court concluded that the tenor and cumulative effect of the publications amounted to imputations harming the reputation of the complainant company.

"The evidence on record sufficiently demonstrates that the publications were not confined to abstract policy criticism, but attributed discreditable conduct to the complainant company itself," court held. 

It held that the essential ingredients of Section 499 IPC were satisfied and answered the principal issue in the affirmative, thereby finding the accused guilty under Section 500 IPC.

Case Title: Adani Enterprise Limited vs. Ravi Nair

Judgment Date: February 10, 2026

Judge: Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mansa Damini Dixit