Follow TNM's WhatsApp channel for news updates and story links.
A magistrate court in Gujarat, on Tuesday, February 10, has sentenced investigative journalist Ravi Nair to one year of imprisonment and imposed a fine of Rs 5000 in a criminal defamation case filed by Adani Enterprises Limited. Ravi is an independent journalist, who has consistently reported on corporate monopoly and misconduct, including the Adani-Hindenburg row.
The conviction was based on a series of posts made by Ravi between October 2020 and July 2021 on his X (formerly Twitter) handle and on his investigations into the Adani group published on Adani Watch. TNM reviewed the tweets and found that 14 of them were links Ravi shared from publications such as Times of India, Bloomberg, Newsclick, Caravan and Adani Watch, sometimes with his own comments.
Judicial First Class Magistrate Damini Dixit ordered that Ravi was guilty of section 499 (criminal defamation) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The court did not accept his argument that the publications constituted fair comment and criticism on matters of public importance and governance.
One of the X posts which the Adani Enterprises submitted as defamatory was Ravi’s criticism of the Union Government’s announcement regarding natural gas marketing reforms in October 2020. The post, which carried a link to the cabinet decision, questioned if it was a transparent move, adding that Adani wanted to be ‘numero uno of the CNG market’.
On October 11, 2020, Ravi posted an article regarding a strike against the proposed privatisation of the Jawaharlal Nehru Port Trust at Uran in Maharashtra’s Raigad district and asked, “Adani?”
His counsel argued that in its annual report in 2020-2021, Adani enterprises had described JNPT container terminal as an opportunity for private players arising from disinvestment and questioned why a journalist could not raise concerns about the possible creation of a monopoly.
In another tweet, dated October 20, 2020, Ravi posted an opinion piece from Times of India that was critical of how the Union Government dealt with Adani’s bid on Deewan Housing Finance Ltd (DHFL). Ravi said that the group is a bubble that may burst sooner or later. His lawyer argued in court that the same point had been made by several publications and Ravi was being singled out.
In another tweet, Ravi asked why diamond merchant Jatin Mehta, accused of swindling banks of thousands of crores, had not been brought back to India, and questioned if his familial ties to Adani’s family had shielded him.
Ravi’s counsel argued that Adani Enterprises had alleged reputational or financial loss, but failed to produce any materials to show that the tweets or articles had caused any actual damage. They also argued that Ravi’s tweets fell within the exceptions to Section 499 of the Indıan Penal Code.
Section 499 exempts words or deeds that were made for the public good.
The defence argued that the publications constituted fair comment and criticısm on matters of public importance and governance and were therefore protected.
During the trial, the defence argued that the posts were in good faith as they were based on research done from articles which are available in the public domain. The research materials, which formed the basis of the tweets, were also submitted.
The court, however, dismissed this argument and observed that the tweets or publications cannot be viewed in isolation.
“Though the tweets and articles pertain to different events and were published over a period of time, they consistently target the complainant company and its group by alleging unethical conduct, manipulation of laws, misuse of governmental machinery, environmental violations, and financial impropriety. The tenor, theme, and direction of the publications are uniform,” it said. The court said that the defamatory character of the publications was evident upon a plan reading of the contents of the tweets.
The court also said that suggesting illegality, manipulation of laws, undue political influence etc is not a matter of ‘mere opinion’ and can damage reputation. The judge concluded that defamation does not require proof of actual financial loss, only a tendency to harm reputation.
The court also said that while freedom of speech includes the right to question corporate conduct and governmental policy, such freedom is not absolute.
“The law draws a clear line between responsıble critique and reckless imputation,” the order said.
The question of criminal defamation
Over the years, there have been repeated demands to reform or repeal the colonial-era criminal defamation laws, citing its increasing misuse against journalists, politicians and rights activists. This assumes relevance given that the legal framework offers other remedies including civil suits, to address defamation.
In 2016, former union minister Subramanian Swamy moved the Supreme Court to decriminalise the defamation law. The then Congress vice-president Rahul Gandhi and Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal became parties to the case. However, the SC upheld the constitutional validity of section 499, stating that reputation of a person is an integral part of the right to life granted under Article 21 of the Constitution.
The Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) expressed concerns over Ravi’s sentencing. The CPJ Asia wrote on X that they were closely monitoring the situation.
Sharing the report of Ravi’s conviction, founding editor of The Wire Siddharth Varadarajan warned about the threats of criminal defamation. “A reminder that Criminal Defamation remains a constant and real threat for the media. India is one of the few democracies to criminalise defamation (as opposed to treating it as a civil matter),” he posted on X.
Senior lawyer Prashant Bushan termed the judgement ‘unfair and wrong’. “Ravi Nair is one of the finest investigative journalists in the world. He never wrote anything against Adani which was not true or unjustified. But should we be surprised?,” he wrote on X.