Gujarat court sentences journalist to one year jail in defamation case filed by Adani Group

The company alleged that the journalist tweeted defamatory materials "without exercising due diligence or responsible journalistic standards."

A local court in Gandhinagar district sentenced a Delhi-based journalist to one year imprisonment after holding him guilty of criminal defamation for his posts on social media against Adani Group.

Damini Dixit, judicial magistrate first class, Mansa, Gandhinagar, held journalist Ravi Nair guilty under section 499 (criminal defamation) of the Indian Penal Code punishable under section 500 of the code. The court sentenced him to one year simple imprisonment and ordered to pay a fine of Rs 5000.

"The evidence on record sufficiently demonstrates that the publications were not confined to abstract policy criticism, but attributed discreditable conduct to the complainant company itself...The repeated nature of the publication, their categorical tone, and their dissemination through platforms having wide reach indicate that the accused had knowledge, or at least reason to believe, that such imputations would cause harm to the reputation of the complainant company.

The judgement states that a plain reading of the contents of the tweets "demonstrated that the accused has attributed to the complainant company and its group serious allegations of illegality, corruption, manipulation of laws, abuse of government machinery, financial impropriety, and unethical conduct."

In 2021, Adani Enterprises Limited (AEL) filed a criminal complaint against journalist Ravi Nair through its authorised signatory Anshul Rajendraprasad Saini following a resolution passed by the Board of Directors of the company.

The company alleged that between October 2020 and July 2021, Nair through his Twitter (now known as X) handle "@d_h_nair" published a series of tweets which were "scandalous, false, misleading, derogatory, and defamatory in nature." It further alleged that Nair also published and circulated defamatory articles on a website operation under the domain name "www.adaniwatch.org." The company said that the allegations were made "without verification, authoritative findings, or factual basis, and are presented in a manner to arouse suspicion, distrust and adverse public opinion against it.

The copy of the judgement mentions portions of the complaint where the Adani Group described itself as "a globally recognised integrated infrastructure player" whose "trade name and brand "Adani" has acquired immense goodwill and reputation in domestic as well as international markets, and that the general public associates the said name with the business conglomerate of the Adani Group and its constituent companies, including the complainant."

The company alleged that Nair tweeted defamatory materials "without exercising due diligence or responsible journalistic standards."

Some of the tweets reproduced in the judgment reads, "When it comes to Natural Gas, there are two Major Private Players in India. Mukesh Ambani wants to be the number one LPG supplier in India and Gautam Adani wants to be numero uno of the CNG market. What a transparent move! Wah wah," "Modi government tweaked environment laws to facilitate an Adani-backed project project get clearance," "When it comes to Adani group, Govt knows how to bend laws and rules to fit in PM Modi's favourite crony Adani group is a bubble It will burst sooner than later and lot of public sector banks and scores of small investors will be doomed" and "Who is this Adani? Adani had a documented history of corruption, bribery, abuses and human rights across the world. It was also facing further criminal investigation for alleged involvement in multi-dollar fraud in India," among others.

The court found these tweets were framed in a manner that "conveys assertions of fact rather than speculative opinion."

The court stated, "The distinction between permissible criticism and defamatory imputation is subtle but crucial. Fair criticism ordinarily addresses matters of public interest, is grounded in facts that are either admitted or verifiable, and is expressed without imputing dishonest motives or illegal conduct unless supported by due verification."

The court held that the tweets not only criticised policies or expressed disagreement but also attributed decisions to alleged collusion or favouritism towards the complainant company. "Such attribution shifts the focus from policy criticism to character and conduct, thereby crossing the threshold from protected expression into actionable defamation," the court observed.

The court also refused to grant any relief to Nair, stating that he failed to "bring the case within the scope of any statutory exceptions or provide any material on record to justify the imputations on the grounds of truth, good faith, or public interest."