Supreme Court allowed journalist Ravi Nair to withdraw his plea seeking quashing of an FIR over his Washington Post article on LIC’s Adani Group investments

The Supreme Court on Wednesday allowed journalist Ravi Nair to withdraw his plea seeking quashing of an FIR registered over an article published in The Washington Post, which alleged that the government influenced the Life Insurance Corporation of India’s (LIC) investments in Adani Group companies.

The Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta was hearing Nair’s plea challenging the FIR.


Appearing for Nair, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal told the Court that he had advised his client and that the issues raised in the petition could be addressed at the appropriate stage.

“I’ve advised my client. As and when a chargesheet is filed, we will raise all these points,” Sibal submitted.

Following the submission, Sibal sought permission to withdraw the petition while reserving Nair’s right to raise his grievances before the appropriate forum at the appropriate stage.

The Supreme Court accordingly recorded that the petition could be dismissed as withdrawn, leaving it open to Nair to raise his grievances at the appropriate stage before the appropriate forum.

The Court did not adjudicate the allegations or the merits of Nair’s challenge to the FIR.

Background

The FIR was registered in connection with Nair’s Washington Post article concerning allegations that LIC’s investments in companies of the Adani Group were influenced by the government.

Nair had approached the Supreme Court seeking quashing of the criminal proceedings. With the plea now withdrawn, the legal issues raised by him have been left open for consideration before the appropriate forum at the appropriate stage.

Earlier this year, a court in Gujarat convicted Nair for criminal defamation under Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to one year’s imprisonment along with a fine of ₹5,000. Judicial First Class Magistrate Damini Dixit rejected Nair’s defence that his posts constituted fair comment and legitimate criticism on matters of public concern and governance.

The Court had 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. It had 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.

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 had 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 had 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.

Case Title: Ravi Nair v. State of Gujarat and Anr.

Bench: Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta

Hearing Date: September 9, 2026

Tags: