The Supreme Court of India on Monday declined to entertain a plea by journalist Ravi Nair challenging a notice issued by the Gujarat Crime Branch in connection with an article he co-authored in The Washington Post about the Adani Group, asking him to instead approach the jurisdictional High Court.
A bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta dismissed the petition as withdrawn, granting Nair the liberty to move the Gujarat High Court.
Nair had approached the top court challenging a notice dated February 12 issued by the Crime Branch, directing him to appear in person on February 19 for a preliminary enquiry.
The notice was linked to an article titled “India’s $3.9 billion plan to help Modi’s mogul ally after U.S. charges,” which Nair co-authored with Pranshu Verma, then New Delhi bureau chief of The Washington Post. The notice also referred to one of Nair’s posts on X.
Senior Advocate Anand Grover, appearing for Nair, argued that Adani had initiated three separate cases against his client and that he was being “consistently harassed”. He also contended that the Crime Branch had acted without jurisdiction.
The bench, however, questioned why Nair had directly approached the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution of India instead of first seeking relief before the High Court. When Grover argued that his client’s fundamental right to free speech was at stake, the court remained unconvinced.
Grover then requested interim protection from coercive action until Nair could approach the High Court, but the bench declined, noting that the option of e-filing before the High Court was available.
Nair is also facing a separate legal battle with the Adani Group. Adani Enterprises Limited had filed a criminal defamation case against him over a series of posts on X, alleging that they contained false and defamatory statements intended to damage the company’s reputation.
In February, a Gujarat court convicted Nair and sentenced him to one year’s imprisonment and imposed a fine of ₹5,000. Judicial First Class Magistrate Damini Dixit held him guilty of criminal defamation under Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code, rejecting his defence that the posts constituted fair comment and legitimate criticism on matters of public concern and governance.