Gujarat High Court judge Justice SV Pinto on Tuesday (October 13) recused from hearing journalist Ravi Nair's plea challenging a sessions court's order which rejected his plea to bring on record additional evidence concerning a defamation case filed by Adani Enterprises Ltd.

Adani Enterprises Ltd 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.

On 10.02.2026, 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.

Aggrieved, Nair preferred an appeal before the sessions court. Thereafter he filed an application before sessions court seeking permission to produce additional evidence in the pending appeal which was rejected by sessions court on July 22. Against this he has moved the high court.

When the matter was called on Tuesday, Justice SV Pinto in her order said, "Not before this Court.”

Nair states that at the trial, the complainant itself had exhibited certain tweets, together with, in each case, a "News Link" field disclosing the third-party news report the tweet referred to and had exhibited the two articles in full as Exhibits 61 and 62. The material the Applicant now seeks to produce is not new evidence, he has claimed.

The plea claims that the material is the full text of the third-party news reports that the complainant's own Exhibits 46 to 60 already identify. It states that truth and public good are complete defences to defamation and the court cannot test the truth of the imputations, or the Applicant's good faith, without examining the sources he had relied on.

It is argued that the Applicant's defence at trial was to test the sufficiency of the complainant's own proof through cross-examination, consistent with the presumption of innocence and the rule that an accused bears no burden to prove his innocence; which is why he elected not to lead formal defence evidence.

However he had stated on oath, in his statement under Section 313 CrPC dated 06.11.2025, that he "shall produce documentary evidence in support of [his] defence at the stage of arguments."

It is stated that at the stage of final arguments, the applicant placed the source material before the Trial Court, which is independently confirmed by the Trial Court's own judgment, which records at para 25 the complainant's own characterisation that the Applicant "seeks to rely upon documentary material for the first time at the stage of final arguments".

However, the plea states, that the Trial Court did not pass any order admitting, or declining to admit, the material so tendered by the applicant. It is stated that the trial court judgment does not deal with the tender of documents by applicant at all as a question of admissibility; it proceeds directly to hold that "the accused has not led any independent evidence to establish the truth of the imputations...No documentary material, official record, or verified data has been produced".

The plea states that no procedure exists under Section 314 CrPC, at the stage of final arguments, for formally marking a document as an exhibit; the evidence stage having already concluded, defence counsel could do no more than place the material before the Court and rely on it in argument.

Thereafter when the applicant sought to produce the documents by filing application seeking permission to produce additional evidence, the sessions court rejected the same holding that Section 391 CrPC requires strict due diligence, akin to Order 41 Rule 27 CPC. Secondly, the applicant had a fair opportunity at trial and "willingly avoided" using it and that mentioning the documents at final arguments, without a formal application, was not enough, since they were never "filed on record".

The plea seeks setting aside of the trial court. It further seeks that the applicant's application to produce as additional evidence the third-party news reports and other material identified in Exhibits 46 to 62, be allowed.

Previously the high court had closed Nair's plea challenging his arrest on the strength of a non-bailable warrant was issued by a sessions court for non-appearance in a defamation case filed by Adani Enterprise.

Advocates Abhik Chimni and Ronith Joy appeared for Nair.