The Gujarat Police Crime Branch on Monday, August 17, searched the Delhi residence of independent journalist Ravi Nair in connection with a criminal case linked to his reporting on the Adani Group and seized several electronic devices.
According to people familiar with the search, the police took three laptops, two mobile phones and an iPad from Nair’s residences in Delhi and Kerala. Some of the devices belonged to Nair’s son and his colleague Sachi Hegde, neither of whom is an accused or named in the case.
The searches were carried out under a warrant issued by an Ahmedabad magistrate’s court.
Devices of Journalist’s Son and Colleague Seized
Police officials reached Nair’s residences in Delhi and Kerala at around 2 pm and conducted searches that lasted several hours.
At the Delhi residence, officials seized Nair’s son’s laptop along with Hegde’s laptop and iPad. Hegde was reportedly present at the house when the police arrived.
Nair himself was in Kerala at the time. Police seized two of his older mobile phones and other electronic storage devices from his Kerala residence.
The seizure has raised concerns because Nair’s son and Hegde are not accused in the case.
Case Linked to Adani-LIC Report
The searches come days after the Gujarat High Court on August 11 refused to quash an FIR against Nair.
The case relates to a Washington Post report published in October 2025 and co-authored by Nair. The report alleged that the government and the state-owned Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC) had directed about $3.9 billion in investments towards Adani Group companies.
LIC and the Finance Ministry denied the allegations and questioned the authenticity of documents cited in the report.
An employee of Adani Ports and Special Economic Zone Limited (APSEZ) subsequently filed a complaint against Nair, alleging that he had published false and fabricated information and relied on forged documents.
‘Mere Denial Does Not Make Documents Forged’
Nair had approached the Gujarat High Court seeking to quash the FIR.
His lawyers argued that LIC’s denial of the Washington Post report did not by itself establish that Nair had committed an offence or that the documents used in the report were forged.
They argued that “mere denial by the LIC” could not make the documents relied upon by the journalist forged.
The Gujarat government and the complainant opposed the plea, arguing that the authenticity of the documents needed to be investigated.
Justice M R Mengdey dismissed Nair’s petition on August 11, holding that the investigating agency should determine whether the documents cited in the report were genuine.
The court observed that the existence and authenticity of the documents were in question and said they “prima facie appear to be forged”, leaving the matter for investigation.
Concerns Over Hash Values of Seized Devices
The seizure has also raised questions over the handling of the electronic devices.
According to reports, police officials did not provide hash values for the seized devices. A hash value acts as a digital fingerprint of data and can help establish whether information on a device has been altered after seizure.
The issue is significant because the Supreme Court had previously called for safeguards governing the seizure and examination of journalists’ electronic devices, stressing concerns over unrestricted access to journalists’ digital information.
The Gujarat Police’s searches came just days after the High Court rejected Nair’s plea, allowing the investigation into the allegations of forgery to continue.
