Defamation case by Adani firm: Gujarat HC rejects Ravi Nair’s plea on additional evidence

The Gujarat High Court (HC) has rejected Ravi Nair’s plea seeking to introduce additional documents in his appeal against a defamation conviction, holding that the material he sought to bring on record was already part of the trial court proceedings.

On November 2, Justice R T Vachhani dismissed Nair’s criminal revision application challenging a July 22 order of the Gandhinagar sessions court, which had rejected his request to produce the documents. The HC, however, clarified that its decision would not affect the pending appeal.

The case originates from a private complaint filed by Adani Enterprises Ltd, alleging that Nair published a series of defamatory posts against the company on Twitter between October 2020 and July 2021. The complainant alleged that the posts were “scandalous, false, misleading, derogatory and defamatory.” Nair was also accused of publishing “objectionable” articles on the website ‘adaniwatch.org’, which allegedly “caused substantial damage to the company's reputation”.

The trial court convicted Nair under Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code, punishable under Section 500, and sentenced him to one year of simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs 5,000. He challenged the conviction in a Criminal Appeal and filed an application on May 26, seeking permission to produce additional evidence including screenshots and printouts of documents accessed through links that had been submitted by the complainant.

Appearing for Nair, senior counsel Madhav Khurana argued that the complainant submitted only links to the documents and not the actual contents of the disputed articles. He said the actual articles and their printouts were necessary to establish what had been published and should be accepted as additional evidence.

Opposing the plea, senior counsel Mitesh Amin, appearing for the complainant, argued that Nair had ample opportunity to produce the documents during the trial. He could have referred to them while examining or cross-examining witnesses, but had failed to do so despite knowing about their existence.

The request had been made only after his conviction, Amin submitted. Examining the plea for accepting additional evidence, the HC found that the documents Nair wanted to submit were already part of the record. The court held that the submissions made by Nair “do not inspire confidence and does not merit acceptance” for production of additional documents.

Dismissing the revision application as devoid of merit, the HC made it clear that its decision would not affect the arguments either side could raise before the Sessions Court. It clarified that its reasoning was limited to the issue before it and that the appellate court must decide the matter independently, “in accordance with the law” and “uninfluenced by the dismissal of the present revision application”.

Aditi Raja is an Senior Assistant Editor with The Indian Express, stationed in Vadodara, Gujarat, wi... Read More