Back
Seeks Adani Response in Journalist Ravi Nair's Challenge
Court Grants Time for to File Reply; Matter Posted for September 21
The on Saturday () issued notice to Ltd and the in a plea filed by journalist Ravi Nair challenging a ) issued against him in a . The court granted time to the company to file a response, with the matter now on .
Case Background: Defamation Allegations and Conviction
Ravi Nair, a journalist ordinarily residing in Kerala, was convicted on , by the , for defamation. The magistrate held Nair guilty of the offence and sentenced him to one year of along with a fine of Rs. 5,000. The case stemmed from a series of tweets allegedly containing false and defamatory statements about Ltd and the .
Nair appealed the conviction before the , which suspended his sentence with conditions, including regular appearance, not leaving India without permission, depositing his passport, and keeping the court informed of any change in address or mobile number.
The Core Dispute: Direct Issuance of
The controversy emerged when, without any prior notice or summons, a non-bailable warrant was issued directly against Nair. When Nair approached the appellate court seeking cancellation of the warrant through an application (), it was rejected, and he was taken into custody. This led Nair to file the current before the , also challenging the order declaring him an .
Arguments Presented
, appearing for Nair, argued that the petition arises from urgency, as the appellate court's refusal to cancel the resulted in Nair's arrest. The petitioner sought restoration of the earlier order suspending his sentence and releasing him on bail.
Senior counsel for
sought time to file an affidavit, citing the need to present
"legal points along with factual background."
, also appearing for Nair, opposed the request, emphasizing that this is an appellate-stage matter. He questioned,
"why Nair should spend even one day in jail,"
underscoring the hardship of travel from Kerala to Gujarat for each hearing.
Court's Observations and Decision
Justice M. K. Thakker, presiding over the matter, noted at the outset why the non-bailable warrant was issued and why Nair was taken into custody. While granting time to Adani, the court clarified that would be permitted.
"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 is required to be given. It is clarified that ."
The court permitted , with the matter listed for .
Key Observations
The court's order reflects the balance between ensuring for all parties and addressing the urgency highlighted by the petitioner. The directive that "" signals a firm approach to expediting the matter.
Implications
This case highlights the in quashing of non-bailable warrants and the challenges of ensuring compliance with across state lines. For journalists and public figures, it underscores the seriousness of alleging defamation and the judicial oversight required when are applied.
Case Title:
Bench: Honourable Mrs. Justice M. K. Thakker
Appearances: - and with for the Petitioner - , Additional Public Prosecutor for the Respondent-State
The court's order comes as a developing story, with all eyes on the September 21 hearing to see how the matter unfolds.
