Supreme Court refuses to intervene in a plea filed by journalist Ravi Nair against Ahmedabad Crime Branch notice

The Supreme Court refused to intervene in a petition filed by journalist Ravi Nair, who is challenging a February 12 notice of summons issued by the Ahmedabad Crime Branch in connection, according to him, with co-authoring an article titled “India’s $3.9 billion plan to help Modi’s mogul ally after U.S. charges”, published in ‘The Washington Post’ daily.

A Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta asked the petitioner, represented by senior advocate Anand Grover and advocate Paras Nath Singh, to move the Gujarat High Court.

The court allowed the petitioner to withdraw the petition without entertaining his oral plea for protection against any coercive action for now.

When Mr. Grover replied that coming before the apex court was a fundamental right of the petitioner under Article 32 of the Constitution, Justice Nath said approaching the High Court concerned under Article 22 was equally a fundamental right.

The petition said the article had “revealed how Indian officials drafted and pushed through a proposal in May 2025 to steer roughly $3.9 billion in investments to Adani Group businesses from the Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC), a state-owned entity primarily responsible for providing life insurance to poor and rural families”.

The petition had argued that the February 12 notice “seeks to criminalise journalistic work carried out in good faith, after due diligence, and in the public interest”.

It had been argued that the rights of the petitioner under Articles 14 (right to equal treatment in law), 19(1)(a) (free speech and expression), and the right not to be deprived of his personal liberty except according to procedure established by law, enshrined under Article 21 had been threatened by the State of Gujarat.

The petition said the State authorities were “illegally indulging in a roving and fishing inquiry against the petitioner without jurisdiction”.

“The article was published bona fide in public interest, based on internal documents from LIC and the Indian Department of Financial Services (DFS), a branch of the country’s Finance Ministry; interviews with current and former officials at those agencies; and three Indian bankers familiar with Adani Group finances. All sources spoke on condition of anonymity owing to fear of professional retribution,” the petition submitted.

It said Mr. Nair had exercised due diligence and reviewed the documents in accordance with good journalistic practices.

“The petitioner’s co-author also sought responses from the Adani Group, LIC, DFS, and the Prime Minister’s Office. Only the Adani Group responded to the queries sent by the authors, and their response was duly published alongside the article. LIC, DFS, and the PMO chose not to reply,” it had contended.