On Friday, November 3, the Supreme Court extended interim protection to journalists Ravi Nair and Anand Mangnale, shielding them from potential arrest by the Gujarat police in connection with their article concerning the Adani-Hindenburg dispute.

The case involving journalists Ravi Nair and Anand Mangnale, who had been summoned by the Ahmedabad crime branch for questioning in connection with their critical article on the Adani-Hindenburg dispute published on the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP) website, was being heard by a bench comprised of Justices BR Gavai and Prashant Kumar Mishra. The journalists had filed writ petitions challenging these summonses.

At the beginning of the hearing, Justice Gavai questioned Senior Advocate Indira Jaising, who was representing both journalists, about their decision to directly approach the Supreme Court.

The senior counsel quickly responded, stating, "They cannot be compelled to visit that location." She further emphasized that the primary concern was the legal basis for the notices issued by the Gujarat police.

Jaising informed the bench that Nair and Mangnale had not received copies of the application referred to in the summonses. Additionally, they were not informed about the specific legal provisions under which these notices were issued, nor were they made aware of the existence of a first information report (FIR) filed against them in relation to these summonses. When the journalists reached out to the Ahmedabad crime branch to request more information, they were told that the requested documents would only be provided once they appeared in person for questioning.

The Gujarat police also informed Nair and Mangnale that the question of registering an FIR will not arise at this stage, Jaising revealed. “Therefore,” she argued, “If it is their case that no FIR has been registered, then by what authority are they being called?”

“Is it a Section 41A notice? Is it a notice under Section 160? Do they stand in the character of the accused? Or are they witnesses? There’s no clarity,” Jaising emphatically contended. She also added that if the notices had been issued under Section 160 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, under which police officers can compel the attendance of witnesses, they were liable to be set aside on grounds of lack of jurisdiction. “If they are Section 160 notices, they could not have been issued by the Gujarat police since their residence is in Delhi. Gujarat police’s jurisdiction does not extend to Delhi.”

It is also not a notice under Section 41A of CrPC, Jaising insisted, pointing to the non-registration of an FIR –

“Offences must be cognizable or non-cognizable. There’s no third category. If it’s a cognizable offence, an FIR under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure must be registered. On their admission, no such FIR has been registered. If that is the case, then by what authority are they being summoned to appear before an officer who does not have jurisdiction to summon them?”

“This is nothing but pure and simple harassment and a prelude to a possible arrest,” she asserted, “There is no authority to summon them and these summonses are a violation of their rights under Article 21 of the Constitution.”

The violation of the fundamental right to life and liberty of the two journalists, Jaising contended, justified a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution. “There’s no reason why they should be driven either to appear before this police officer, or to approach any high court.”