Gujarat HC: Ravi Nair NBW Plea in Adani Defamation Disposed After Bail

• The Gujarat High Court disposed of journalist Ravi Nair's plea challenging a non-bailable warrant in an Adani defamation case after he secured regular bail.
• Nair was granted regular bail on September 24 by the Gandhinagar Sessions Court under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, which also restored a March 9, 2026 order.
• The High Court refrained from examining the NBW's legality on merits but strongly criticized Nair's counsel for a "hide-and-seek approach" regarding material facts.
• The court reiterated that litigants invoking writ jurisdiction must disclose all material facts with utmost candour, as the court, not the party, determines their relevancy.
• Suppression of material facts is not advocacy but an attempt to manipulate and misrepresent the judicial process, according to the High Court.

Suppression or concealment of material facts is not an aspect of advocacy; rather, it amounts to an attempt at manipulation and misrepresentation of the judicial process.

The Gujarat High Court recently concluded proceedings concerning journalist Ravi Nair's challenge to a non-bailable warrant (NBW) issued against him in a criminal defamation case initiated by Adani Enterprises Limited. The court, presided over by Justice M.K. Thakker, opted to dispose of Nair's petition without delving into the merits of the NBW's legality. This decision came after the High Court was informed that the Gandhinagar Sessions Court had subsequently granted Nair regular bail.

Nair had sought the High Court's intervention after the Gandhinagar District and Sessions Court issued the NBW due to his failure to appear personally during the hearing of his appeal against a criminal defamation conviction. The warrant was executed on September 17, leading to Nair's judicial custody. His counsel had contended that the appellate court should have first considered issuing a summons or a bailable warrant before resorting to an NBW, noting Nair's prior appearances and a granted exemption on another occasion.

The subsequent development that led to the High Court's disposal was the Gandhinagar Sessions Court's order dated September 24. This order allowed Nair's application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), granting him regular bail and restoring a previous order passed on March 9, 2026. The High Court explicitly stated that in light of these events, it would refrain from making any observations or passing judgment on the impugned NBW order itself.

Before disposing of the matter, the Gujarat High Court took the opportunity to address a critical issue regarding the disclosure of material facts by litigants invoking its writ jurisdiction. The court observed that the conduct of Nair's counsel presented an impression that the petitioner had adopted a "hide-and-seek approach" and a "pick-and-choose method" in presenting information to the court.

Citing established Supreme Court jurisprudence, the High Court underscored that any party seeking the extraordinary jurisdiction of a High Court is expected to approach it with "utmost candor, frankness, and openness." This obligation extends to disclosing all material facts without reservation, including those that might be adverse to the petitioner's own case. The court firmly rejected the argument that non-disclosure could be excused simply because it was perceived not to have prejudiced the court.

The High Court clarified that the determination of a fact's materiality or relevancy rests solely with the court, not with the advocate or the party involved. It emphasized that it is not for counsel or the litigant to decide which facts are pertinent for adjudication, as this assessment is the prerogative of the judicial body.

The High Court further elaborated on the serious implications of withholding or distorting information, stating that the suppression, concealment, or distortion of any material fact would inevitably impede the proper exercise of its writ jurisdiction and complicate the adjudicatory process. Such actions undermine the court's ability to render informed and just decisions.

In a strong admonition, the court declared that the suppression or concealment of material facts does not fall within the bounds of legitimate advocacy. Instead, it characterized such conduct as an attempt to manipulate and misrepresent the judicial process itself. This stance reinforces the judiciary's expectation of complete transparency and honesty from all parties engaging with the legal system, particularly when invoking extraordinary remedies like writ petitions.

Nair's absence on September 3, which led to the rejection of his exemption application and the subsequent NBW issuance, was a key factor in the High Court's broader discussion on disclosure. The Sessions Court had initially granted Nair bail on March 9 while his appeal was pending, with a directive for his personal presence during appellate proceedings, a condition he failed to meet on the critical September date.

Lawyers and compliance officers should note the Gujarat High Court's strong emphasis on the duty of candour in writ petitions. This ruling reinforces that all material facts, including adverse ones, must be disclosed to the court, as non-disclosure can be viewed as an attempt to manipulate the judicial process, regardless of counsel's assessment of its materiality.

Source: Reporting based on legal news coverage.