Supreme Court Refuses to Entertain Journalist Ravi Nair’s Plea Against Gujarat Crime Branch Notice

The bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta dismissed the petition as withdrawn after asking Nair to approach the jurisdictional High Court for relief.

Nair had moved the Court under Article 32 of the Constitution challenging a notice dated February 12, 2026, issued by the Gujarat Crime Branch directing him to appear for a preliminary enquiry. The notice was issued in relation to an article published last year in The Washington Post titled “India's $3.9 billion plan to help Modi's mogul ally after U.S. charges.”

The article was co-authored by Nair and journalist Pranshu Verma, who was then serving as the New Delhi bureau chief of the publication.

According to the notice, Nair was directed to remain personally present before the Crime Branch in Ahmedabad on February 19 for a preliminary enquiry concerning the article and one of his tweets.

Senior Advocate Anand Grover, appearing for Nair, argued before the Court that the company had initiated three separate cases against the journalist and that he was being subjected to repeated harassment. He further contended that the Gujarat Crime Branch lacked jurisdiction to issue the notice.

However, the Bench questioned why the petitioner had approached the Supreme Court directly under Article 32 instead of first seeking relief from the jurisdictional High Court.

When Grover argued that the case involved the petitioner’s fundamental right to free speech, the Bench remained unconvinced. The senior counsel then requested interim protection from coercive action until Nair could move the High Court.

The Court declined to grant any interim protection, observing that the petitioner could approach the High Court and even file the petition through the e-filing mechanism.

In view of the Bench’s inclination, the plea was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty granted to Nair to pursue appropriate remedies before the High Court.

The matter arises against the backdrop of a separate criminal defamation case filed by Adani Enterprises Limited, which accused Nair of publishing and circulating a series of tweets allegedly containing false and defamatory statements aimed at damaging the reputation of the company and the Adani Group.

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.