Click the Play button to listen to article

Journalist Ravi Nair has approached the Supreme Court seeking release in the Adani defamation case, after he was taken into custody in furtherance of a Gujarat Court's non-bailable warrant. 

He has filed a Special Leave Petition challenging the Gujarat High Court order, which denied him interim relief. 

Advocate Abhik Chimni mentioned the matter before the Chief Justice of India at 2 PM today seeking urgent listing. However, the CJI did not entertain the mentioning.

Adani Enterprises Ltd filed the criminal defamation case alleging that Nair published and disseminated a series of tweets containing false and defamatory statements intended to damage the reputation of AEL and the Adani Group. 

In February this year, the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mansa, held Nair guilty of the offence of defamation, convicted and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a term of one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000.  On March 9, the Gandhinagar Sessions Court suspended the sentence and released him on bail pending disposal of the appeal.

On September 3, the Sessions Court rejected his exemption application and issued a non-bailable warrant (NBW), declaring him to be an absconder. Pursuant to the NBW, Nair was taken into custody on September 17 and sent to Sabarmati Central Jail, Ahmedabad.

He then approached the Gujarat High Court, challenging the rejection of his plea to cancel the NBW and the declaration that he was an absconder. He claimed that he had been regularly attending the proceedings in March, and later, his advocate was appearing.

The High Court, while reserving order on his petition yesterday, refused to allow his interim release.

Aggrieved, he has now approached the Supreme Court. Nair contends that the NBW and his custody in the case are in violation of the graded procedure contemplated by the Supreme Court in Inder Mohan Goswami v. State of Uttaranchal (2007) 12 SCC 1. He further highlights that defamation is not a heinous offense; it's a bailable offense carrying maximum punishment of 2 years. 

The SLP also relies on a 2026 Supreme Court judgment in Meenakshi v. State of Haryana, contending that personal appearance of an accused on every date of an appeal is not mandatory where the advocate is present and the proceedings are not delayed on account of the accused's absence

It is also pointed out that the High Court having reserved orders for September 30, he would have to be in custody for a week, if interim relief is not granted. Nair further claims that his advocate appeared on all dates of hearing and he was not served with any summons or bailable warrant prior to the NBW issuance. 

The plea also mentions that Nair himself appeared on as many as 3 dates before the trial court. It is contended that his continued incarceration would cause irreversible harm. 

Case: Ravi Nair v. State of Gujarat and Anr. Diary No. 59598/2026

Tags: