Back
Grants Adani Time to Respond in Journalist Ravi Nair Defamation Case
The on Monday granted additional time to file a response to a petition filed by journalist Ravi Nair challenging his arrest following the issuance of a in a case. Justice M.K. Thakker, who had issued notice on Nair’s plea on Saturday, allowed the company’s counsel to place “certain legal and factual aspects” on record. Nair, who remains in , will have to wait until September 23 for the next hearing.
Background of the Case
The case originates from Nair’s on , by the . The magistrate found him guilty of under for a series of posts on X (formerly Twitter) that allegedly contained false and defamatory statements against Adani Enterprises Ltd. and the . He was sentenced to one year of simple imprisonment and a fine of ₹5,000.
Nair appealed against the before the . On , the appellate court subject to several conditions: Nair was required to regularly appear before the court, not leave India without prior permission, deposit his passport, and keep the court informed of his residential address and mobile number. Relying on this order, Nair was released on .
The Non-Bailable Warrant
Trouble arose when Nair failed to appear before the Sessions Court on subsequent dates. The court, on , declared him an , holding that he was deliberately avoiding arrest. Subsequently, on September 17, a non-bailable warrant was issued against him, and his application to cancel the warrant was rejected. He was taken into custody the same week.
In his petition before the , Nair has challenged both the September 3 order (declaring him an ) and the September 17 order (rejecting cancellation of the NBW). He has also sought restoration of the March 9 order. His primary contention is that the NBW was issued directly without any prior notice or summons, and that he was duly represented through counsel at every hearing. Nair argues that he resides in Kerala, far from Gandhinagar, and that attending each hearing imposes disproportionate hardship. He maintains that his absence was never willful and that the appellate proceedings were never delayed due to his non-appearance.
Proceedings in the High Court
When the matter was called on Monday, senior counsel , appearing for Adani Enterprises, requested time to file a detailed affidavit. He submitted that there were certain legal points and factual background that needed to be placed on record before the court could pass any interim orders.
Advocate , representing Nair, vehemently opposed the request. He pressed for immediate , arguing that the case was at an appellate stage and not at trial. “They have no position to say anything in this matter. A judgment squarely covers me. This is at an appellate stage. This is not even the trial. Why should I even spend one day in jail?” Chimni submitted. He further contended that Adani Enterprises, being a private complainant, could not seek repeated , especially when his client was in custody.
The court, however, took a different view. Justice Thakker observed, “In the opinion of this Court, when the complainant is represented on issuance of notice, a fair opportunity is required to be given.” The court therefore allowed Adani Enterprises time to file its response but made it clear that no further would be granted.
Court’s Order and Next Hearing
The court dictated its order in open court: “Learned senior counsel seeks time to file an affidavit placing on record some legal points along with factual background and request for time. Mr. Chimni appearing for petitioner objected for request for time. However, in the opinion of this court when complainant is represented on issuance of notice fair opportunity is required to be given. It is clarified that no further .”
The matter has been adjourned to . Until then, Nair will remain in .
Legal Implications and Analysis
This case raises several important procedural questions for criminal appellate practice. The issuance of a non-bailable warrant without prior notice or summons to an accused who was on and represented by counsel is unusual. Nair’s counsel has flagged this as a violation of , especially given that the appellate court had earlier and imposed conditions. The High Court’s willingness to entertain the petition suggests that it sees merit in examining the legality of the warrant and the declaration.
From a broader perspective, the case highlights the tension between a court’s power to secure the presence of an accused and the practical difficulties faced by individuals who reside outside the court’s jurisdiction. Nair’s argument that he is a resident of Kerala, hundreds of kilometers from Gandhinagar, underscores the logistical burden that routine court appearances impose. While the appellate court had the discretion to impose attendance conditions, the proportionality of those conditions vis-à-vis the nature of the offence (defamation) may come under scrutiny.
Another key issue is the role of a private complainant in a defamation case at the appellate stage. Adani Enterprises is not a prosecuting agency but a private party. Yet, the court granted it an opportunity to respond, effectively delaying the consideration of Nair’s interim release. This raises questions about whether such should be permitted when the petitioner is in custody. The High Court’s insistence that no further will be allowed indicates it is mindful of this concern.
For legal practitioners, this case serves as a reminder of the importance of documenting diligent representation and the need to move promptly to contest adverse orders like NBWs. It also illustrates the strategic use of conditions by appellate courts to ensure compliance, and the potential pitfalls when an accused underestimates the importance of personal appearance despite being represented.
Conclusion
The ’s decision to grant Adani Enterprises time to respond delays any immediate relief for journalist Ravi Nair, who remains in jail on a defamation charge stemming from social media posts. While the court has promised no further , the next hearing on September 23 will be critical. The case is closely watched by media law and criminal procedure experts, as it balances the rights of an accused individual against the court’s authority to enforce its orders. The outcome may set a precedent for how NBWs are handled in cases where the accused is on pending .
