The Gujarat High Court has refused to quash the FIR against propagandist Ravi Nair over an October 2025 Washington Post article alleging that the Government of India and Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC) had indicated plans for around $3.9 billion in investment in Adani Group companies.
Nair had sought quashing of the proceedings, arguing, among other things, that APSEZ had already initiated defamation proceedings over similar allegations. The High Court rejected his plea, allowing the investigation to continue.
The Gujarat Police, accompanied by Delhi Police, shortly visited Nair’s house following the verdict to seize his electronic devices after court approval for the ongoing investigation.
The case stems from a complaint by Adani Ports and Special Economic Zone Ltd (APSEZ), which alleges that false and fabricated information and documents were used in the report and related social media posts.
Dhanya Rajendran’s meltdown
Rajendran reacted sharply after Gujarat Police, accompanied by Delhi Police, visited Nair’s residence. She claimed on X that police took two of Nair’s phones, his son’s laptop and the laptop and iPad of a colleague who happened to be present, and alleged that officers refused to provide hash values for the devices.
The complaint was on a tweet about the story, maybe to keep Washington Post out of the FIR. And during the hearing, Adani lawyers and state argued that the story on LIC may have been fabricated. So the court said seize devices if needed!
— Dhanya Rajendran (@dhanyarajendran) August 17, 2026
The important detail in her own account was that the police had a judicial magistrate’s order authorising the seizure.
Rajendran then alleged that the complaint was filed over a tweet rather than directly against The Washington Post “to keep Washington Post out of the FIR”. In another post, she said Adani lawyers and the state had argued that the LIC story may have been fabricated and that the court consequently allowed devices to be seized if needed.
Questions about forensic procedure or the seizure of devices belonging to non-accused persons can legitimately be raised. But they are different from claiming that the investigation itself is illegitimate.
What the APSEZ complaint actually alleges
The complaint was filed by APSEZ deputy general manager Dushyant Joshi, who said he was authorised by a November 5, 2025 board resolution to represent the company before police and courts. He said APSEZ had first approached the Gandhinagar Superintendent of Police on November 20, after which a preliminary inquiry was conducted and the matter was transferred to the Ahmedabad City Crime Branch.
According to the complaint, the October 24 Washington Post article claimed that the Government of India and LIC had indicated plans for around $3.9 billion of public-fund investment in Adani companies. It allegedly relied on documents containing details such as conditions, bond ratings and internal approvals.
APSEZ alleged that Nair posted about the claim on X at 3:43 pm the same day. LIC rejected the report on October 25, saying its investments were made with integrity and due diligence. Later that day, according to the complaint, Nair questioned LIC’s denial and posted screenshots purportedly showing portions of documents, accusing LIC of misleading the public.
APSEZ then wrote to LIC seeking verification of the documents. The complaint says LIC responded on October 28 that it had neither received nor issued such documents and had received no government information or instruction to invest in Adani Group companies. APSEZ said it submitted LIC’s response and relevant stock-exchange disclosures to investigators.
LIC rejected the central claim
LIC’s own public statements are central to the dispute. On October 25, 2025, it rejected the Washington Post report and said its investments were made independently under Board-approved policies and after due diligence. On October 28, it reiterated that it had neither issued nor received the documents cited in the report and had received no government instruction to invest in Adani Group companies.
APSEZ’s complaint consequently alleges something more specific than merely inaccurate reporting. It says the documents and information used by Nair were “false and fabricated from the beginning”, that fabricated documents were presented as genuine, and that the posts caused financial losses and fear among potential investors. It further alleges that Nair used the material for personal financial gain and to damage the companies’ reputation.
These remain allegations, not findings of guilt. But they explain why investigators are examining the provenance of the documents rather than simply scrutinising Nair’s political views.
The FIR invokes BNS Sections 318(4), 336(2), 336(4) and 340(2), concerning cheating, forgery, forgery intended to harm reputation, and using a forged document or electronic record as genuine.
Ravi Nair was already convicted in another Adani defamation case
On February 10, 2026, a Judicial Magistrate First Class court in Mansa, Gandhinagar, convicted Nair in a separate criminal defamation case filed by Adani Enterprises Ltd. The court sentenced him to one year of simple imprisonment and fined him ₹5,000 over tweets and online articles published between October 2020 and July 2021.
After a full trial, the court rejected Nair’s defence of fair criticism and public interest, holding that the publications contained categorical allegations of corruption, manipulation and political patronage and crossed the line into criminal defamation. It also rejected his argument that references to the “Adani Group” did not concern Adani Enterprises.
The magistrate declined probation, observing that journalists must understand the consequences of serious allegations disseminated widely through social media. The sentence was subsequently suspended for one month and Nair was granted bail to pursue an appeal.
The conviction does not establish that every allegation made against Nair is true. But it is an important part of the context missing from Rajendran’s portrayal of him as simply a journalist being persecuted by a powerful corporate group.
Nair also challenged the Crime Branch proceedings before the Supreme Court. The court did not declare the investigation illegal or rule that the reporting was truthful; in March 2026, it directed him to pursue the appropriate remedy before the Gujarat High Court.
The central issue is therefore not whether Nair is a journalist or a propagandist. It is whether the allegations in the report were properly sourced and verified, whether the documents were genuine, and whether investigators followed due process while collecting evidence.
Rajendran is entitled to question the seizure of devices and raise concerns about journalistic material and forensic safeguards. But presenting a judicially authorised investigation as though it were simply an arbitrary attack on a journalist strips away the legal context.
The facts are more complicated: Nair is facing an investigation over allegations that fabricated documents were used to support a major claim about LIC and Adani, and he has already been convicted in a separate Adani criminal defamation case. While Rajendran tries to portray the seizure of Nair’s electronic devices as an “attack on journalists”, his own record suggests it could well be another case of defamation against the Adani Group.
