The Delhi High Court has issued a notice to the editor-in-chief and a journalist of The Caravan magazine in relation to a ₹10 crore defamation lawsuit initiated by Nikhil Nitin Gadkari, son of Union Minister Nitin Gadkari. The lawsuit stems from an article published by the magazine, which alleged financial connections between Nikhil Gadkari’s company, CIAN Agro, and another company involved in the beef trade.
In the defamation suit, Nikhil Gadkari, serving as the Managing Director of CIAN Agro, has called for the removal of the March 2026 article titled, “Nagpur’s Beef – The Beef Company Enmeshed in Gadkari’s Business Empire.” The suit, filed by CIAN Agro Industries & Infrastructure Ltd alongside Nikhil Nitin Gadkari, seeks an interim injunction against the publication of the article.
Justice Subramonium Prasad, overseeing the case, has also been asked to consider issuing a dynamic injunction to prevent The Caravan and its journalists from further publishing or distributing the allegedly defamatory material, whether in print or digitally across social media platforms.
The defendants in the case include Delhi Press Patra Prakashan, The Caravan, its current editor-in-chief Paresh Nath, and journalist Kaushal Shroff. The article in question alleges a link between CIAN Agro and a beef export company named Rembal Agro, suggesting that individuals associated with Rembal hold shares in CIAN Agro and have received loans.
Gadkari refutes these allegations, contending that certain transactions were selectively highlighted to falsely suggest close ties between CIAN and Rembal. The suit claims the article contains numerous false, reckless, and misleading statements intended to wrongly imply that the plaintiffs are involved in the beef trade. It argues that the publication deliberately conflates distinct terms like ‘buff’ (buffalo meat) and ‘beef’ (cow meat) to provoke public outrage and communal tension against the plaintiffs.
More Read
CIAN Agro asserts its operations are confined to agro-based commodities such as frozen vegetables, spices, sugar, edible oils, and other vegetarian products. The plaintiffs also raised concerns about the article’s amplification on social media platforms and by influencers.
Meta’s counsel, advocate Varun Pathak, noted that the lawsuit had not included advocate Prashant Bhushan, who republished the article on X (formerly Twitter), or influencer Dhruv Rathee, who created a video about the article for social media.
The court, however, emphasized the need to first hear from The Caravan and review the foundation of its published content. “At the moment, it is only the magazine, the content uploaded by the magazine which is the subject matter. I would rather first hear the magazine,” remarked Justice Prasad.
More Read
Justice Prasad further noted that the key issue at this stage is to determine whether the article is based on factual information and whether there is a prima facie case concerning the alleged financial transactions. He highlighted the importance of Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, which guarantees freedom of speech, before making any order that might limit it.
The court has scheduled the next hearing for August 31. The lawsuit was filed by advocates Tejas Patel and Meera Kaura Patel.
