Key Points:
Journalist Ravi Nair was convicted in a criminal defamation case filed by Adani Enterprises Ltd (AEL).
He was sentenced to one year of imprisonment along with a fine of Rs 5,000 under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court reiterated that freedom of speech under Article 19(1)(a) is not absolute and cannot override the right to reputation under Article 21.
Journalist Ravi Nair was convicted in a criminal defamation case by a court in Gandhinagar, Gujarat, on 10 February 2026. The complaint was filed by Adani Enterprises Ltd (AEL), leading to his sentencing to one year of imprisonment and a fine of Rs 5,000. The Court of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mansa, announced the verdict, stating that his offences are punishable under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court stated that the verdict was based on a series of tweets and online articles written by Nair that contained defamatory imputations against AEL. The Gandhinagar court noted that the publications, made between October 2020 and July 2021 from Nair’s social media account and a website, exceeded the bounds of fair comment.
It stated that the publications amounted to categorical assertions alleging corruption, manipulation of laws, misuse of government agencies, and that AEL had been receiving unfair political support.
The court said in its statement that the publications disseminated through social media platforms were “clearly capable of lowering the reputation of the complainant company in the estimation of investors, regulators, business partners, and right-thinking members of society.”
The court added, “Mere assertion of research or reliance on public discourse does not satisfy the requirement of truth or good faith. Good faith necessarily implies due care and attention, particularly when the imputations are grave and capable of causing serious reputational harm.”
The magistrate pronounced that the series of tweets posted by Nair over several months implied a planned and continuous effort to damage the complainant’s reputation. The court clarified that the right to freedom of speech under the Constitution is not absolute and reiterated that Article 19(1)(a) cannot override the equally protected right to reputation granted under Article 21.
The court elaborated, “It would be artificial and contrary to common sense to hold that imputations against the ‘Adani Group’ do not concern the complainant company.” Considering the nature of the offence and the manner of its commission, the court declined to extend the benefit of probation, stating, “The benefit of probation is intended for those whose conduct stems from ignorance, youth, or a momentary lapse, rather than calculated intent.”
Nair responded to the verdict and took to X to share, “Hum Dekhenge (We will see),” a reference to a poem by Faiz Ahmed Faiz.
Following the trial, the Mansa magistrate concluded that AEL had successfully established its case and held that Nair was guilty of criminal defamation. A senior lawyer emphasised that defamation is a well-recognised restriction under Article 19(2), citing Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India (2016), which recognised reputation as a fundamental right. He maintained that repeated, unverified allegations amounted to a “trial by media,” which courts have consistently warned against.
Inputs from IANS
[VS]
Suggested Reading:
