The Supreme Court on Friday asked the Gujarat Police not to take any coercive steps against two journalists of the Organised Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP) who were summoned in connection with an article alleging stock manipulation by the Adani group..A bench of Justices BR Gavai and Prashant Kumar Mishra also sought the response of the Gujarat government in the matter..The August 31 article in question is authored by investigative journalist Ravi Nair, OCCRP South-East Asia editor, Anand Mangnale and one NBR Arcadio. The article alleges that foreign owners of the publicly-listed Adani group stock were fronts for its majority owners..The Ahmedabad Crime Branch on October 16 sent a summons in connection with the article to Nair. A similar summons was sent to Mangnale on October 25. .The notice of the summons referred to a preliminary inquiry being conducted into the article based on an application by an investor..Nair and Anand (petitioners) then moved the Court challenging the summons. It was asserted that all due diligence was exercised before the article in question was published. Similar reports have also been published in international publications such as the Financial Times and the Guardian, the Court was told. .The petitioners also questioned the credibility of the investor who had complained about the article to the Gujarat police. It was noted that as per publicly available information, the said investor had earlier been barred from participating in the stock market by the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) in 2009 for three years..Further, the notice for summons does not disclose whether it was under Section 41A (where a person is required to appear before the police if his arrest is not required) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) or any other provision of law, or whether it was connected with a formal criminal complaint. .The police have not handed over a copy of any complaint or disclosed the provision of law being invoked in the matter, the petitioners added. .In any case, if the matter being investigated was under laws of defamation, then the Ahmedabad crime branch would not have jurisdiction, the plea added. The petitioners also contended that the notices of summons amounted to conducting an illegal fishing and roving inquiry, in an attempt to harass the journalists and create a chilling effect on the freedom of speech. .The petitioners added that as journalists, it was their duty to write on such issues, and they should not be singled out. .Senior Advocate Indira Jaising and advocate Paras Nath Singh appeared for the two journalists.