New Delhi: Underlining that freedom of speech does not extend to making unverified accusations that damage the reputation of others, including corporate entities, a Gujarat court Tuesday sentenced journalist Ravi Nair to one year imprisonment and imposed Rs 5,000 fine.
The Adani Group had filed a criminal defamation case against the journalist pertaining to his social media posts and other publications.
In a 55-page order, Damini Dixit, judicial magistrate, first class, Mansa, noted that the “evidence on record showed the publications attribute conduct to the complainant company which, if believed, would lower its moral and commercial standing”.
The judge underlined that the “imputations are not confined to neutral reporting of facts, go beyond mere narration” and the “language used is not tentative or exploratory, but declaratory and accusatory”.
“The accused Mr Ravi Nair is hereby held guilty under Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code punishable under Section 500 of the code,” the court ruled, holding Nair guilty of defamation.
The defence has argued that the publications amount to fair criticism or expression of opinion. While the right to freedom of speech includes the right to criticise, such criticism must remain within the bounds of law, it observed.
The judge also rejected Nair’s request for probation, allowing a person who has committed a crime to be discharged on account of good conduct and behaviour. She said probation was intended for those whose conduct stems from ignorance, youth, or momentary lapse, rather than calculated intent.
“In the present case, the accused is a mature individual fully cognisant of the legal implications of his actions, further underscored by his professional standing which demands a higher standard of responsibility,” the order states.
Granting leniency through probation would undermine the deterrent effect of the law and send a message of impunity to others in similar positions of trust, the court added, pointing out that the offender realises the consequences of their actions when the public is given a message that such violations will be met with firm judicial resolve.
Also Read: Chennai court convicts BJP’s H Raja in two defamation cases for remarks on Periyar, Kanimozhi
A look at the case
Adani Group company Adani Enterprises had filed a complaint against Nair alleging that he had published a series of “scandalous, misleading, derogatory and defamatory” posts on his X handle, targeting the company, between October 2020 and July 2021.
According to the court order, the company also alleged that Nair published defamatory articles on www.adaniwatch.org, which has no association with the complainant company or any Adani Group entity.
The company stated that the cumulative effect of the publications was to malign it among global investors and the public, and portray the company and Adanı Group as beneficiaries of undue political patronage, manipulators of laws and entities engaged in unethical, illegal, or improper business practices. It pleaded that Nair acted without exercising due diligence or responsible journalistic standards.
In defence, Nair’s lawyers had challenged the maintainability of the complaint, territorial jurisdiction of the court, lack of valid authorisation and fundamental defects in the complaint itself.
The court, stating that Nair consistently projected himself as a person engaged in journalism and public commentary for a considerable period of time, said he cannot plead ignorance of the impact, reach and consequences of statements published through digital platforms.
“A person engaged in reporting or commentary is expected to be conscious of the responsibility accompanying such a role, particularly while making categorical imputations affecting the reputation of others,” the court noted in its order.
It also noted that the evidence on record sufficiently demonstrated that the publications were not confined to abstract policy criticism, but attributed discreditable conduct to the Adani Group.
The repeated nature of the publications, their categorical tone, and their dissemination through platforms having wide reach indicated that the accused had knowledge, or at least reason to believe, that such imputations would cause harm to the reputation of the company, the court said.
Besides this, it said there was no material placed by Nair on record to justify his actions on grounds of truth, good faith, or public interest, which are the defences to defamation.
The Adani Group also told the court it had immense goodwill across industries, and that any false, reckless, or malicious imputation against it could cause serious harm to its standing among investors, shareholders, financial institutions, regulatory authorities, business partners, employees, and the public at large.
Making it clear that the right to equality and life did not include making defamatory statements, even towards corporate entities, the court said: “Such statements, when published on a platform accessible to the public at large, are clearly capable of lowering the reputation of the complainant company in the estimation of investors, regulators, business partners, and right-thinking members of society.”
While in a democracy an individual has the right to criticise and dissent, the right under Article 19(1)(a), which relates to the freedom of speech and expression, is not absolute and cannot defame another, the court added.
Besides this, the court noted that Nair tried to portray Adani Group’s business growth as a product of corruption, cronyism, and illegality. “The nature and language of the imputations leave little scope for treating them as fair comment or permissible opinion,” the court said.
(Edited by Nida Fatima Siddiqui)
Also Read: Wankhede’s defamation suit against Ba***ds of Bollywood hits a wall, Delhi HC refuses to hear matter