A Magistrate Court in Gandhinagar, Gujarat, sentenced journalist Ravi Nair to one year imprisonment in the criminal defamation case filed by Adani Enterprises Ltd.
AEL filed the criminal defamation case alleging that Ravi Nair published and disseminated a series of tweets containing false and defamatory statements intended to damage the reputation of AEL and the Adani Group.
The court convicted Ravi Nair and sentenced him to one year's imprisonment and imposed a fine of Rs 5000.
Judicial First Class Magistrate Damini Dixit held Ravi guilty of the offence of criminal defamation under Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code. The court rejected his plea that the posts in question amounted to fair comment and legitimate criticism on issues of public concern and governance.
Among the social media posts cited by Adani Enterprises as defamatory was Ravi's comment on the Union Government's October 2020 decision on natural gas marketing reforms. Sharing a link to the Cabinet decision, Ravi questioned whether the move was truly transparent and remarked that Adani was aiming to become the “numero uno” in the CNG market.
On October 11, 2020, he shared a report about protests opposing the proposed privatisation of the Jawaharlal Nehru Port Trust at Uran in Maharashtra's Raigad district and captioned it with a single-word query: “Adani?”
Appearing for Ravi, his counsel contended that Adani Enterprises, in its 2020–2021 annual report, had itself referred to the JNPT container terminal as a potential opportunity for private players arising out of disinvestment. The defence questioned why a journalist could not flag concerns about the possible emergence of a monopoly.
In another post dated October 20, 2020, Ravi shared an opinion piece from The Times of India that criticised the Union Government's handling of Adani's bid for Deewan Housing Finance Ltd. He added that the conglomerate was a “bubble” that could burst at any time. His lawyer argued that similar views had appeared in several media outlets and that Ravi was being unfairly targeted.
In yet another tweet, Ravi questioned why diamond trader Jatin Mehta, accused of defrauding banks of thousands of crores, had not been extradited to India and asked whether alleged familial connections with the Adani family had provided protection.
The defence maintained Ravi's statements were protected under the exceptions to Section 499, which safeguard imputations made for the public good.
According to the defence, the tweets constituted fair comment on matters of public importance and governance and were therefore protected speech. During the trial, it was also submitted that the posts were made in good faith, based on research drawn from material already available in the public domain.
The Magistrate, however, was not persuaded. The court observed that the posts could not be examined in isolation. Although published over a period of time and relating to different events, they consistently focused on the complainant company and its group, making allegations of unethical conduct, legal manipulation, misuse of state machinery, environmental violations and financial irregularities.
The court found that a plain reading of the tweets revealed their defamatory tenor. It held that imputations suggesting illegality, undue political influence or manipulation of laws went beyond mere opinion and had the potential to harm reputation.
The order clarified that proof of actual financial damage is not essential in a prosecution for defamation; it is sufficient if the statements carry a tendency to injure reputation.
While acknowledging that freedom of speech encompasses the right to scrutinise corporate actions and governmental policies, the court emphasised that such freedom is subject to reasonable limits.
“The law distinguishes between responsible criticism and reckless allegations,” the Magistrate stated.