Thane Court Rejects Digvijaya Singh’s Plea To Dismiss RSS Member's Defamation Suit

The Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division, in Thane, Maharashtra, rejected an application filed by Congress leader Digvijaya Singh seeking the dismissal of a defamation suit initiated by Vivek Champanerkar, a 'Swayamsevak' of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS).

Singh had moved the application seeking rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) of Champanerkar’s plaint as there was no cause of action, and the suit appeared to be barred by law as the Champanerkar-Plaintiff had no locus standi to institute the suit.

Civil Judge Rajesh B. Khandare ordered, "Defendant in last para of the application seems to be formally mentioned that the suit is undervalued and Court fees paid is also insufficient as he has not made any submission regarding thereto in argument. It is pertinent to note that defendant has not mentioned or submitted as to how the suit undervalued and how much court fees is sufficient?. It is well settled law that though the suit is undervalued or court fee paid is insufficient but on that ground plaint cannot be rejected without granting opportunity to the plaintiff to cure the same. In view aforesaid set of circumstances the application deserves to be rejected."

Advocate Aditya Mishra appeared for the Plaintiff. 

Digvijay Singh filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking to have the lawsuit dismissed. Singh argued that the Champanerkar, who claims to be a 'Swayamsevak' of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), has no legal standing to file the suit. He stated that the RSS is an unregistered body and not a "legal person". Therefore, it cannot sue, be sued, or authorize someone else to file a civil suit on its behalf. Singh contended that the plaintiff is seeking compensation for defamation and damages caused to a third party (the RSS) rather than himself personally.

He questioned the Champanerkar's relationship to the leader Golwalkar Guruji and argued that if the plaintiff is not related to him, he cannot claim relief on his behalf. Singh argued there is a distinction between a "legal person" and a "definite body," questioning whether the right to file a criminal complaint grants a member the civil right to file a lawsuit. He alleged the plaintiff failed to mention a valid cause of action, did not seek court permission to sue on behalf of the RSS, undervalued the suit, and paid insufficient court fees.

Vivek Champanerkar strongly resisted the application, asserting his right to pursue the case. Champanerkar argued that the RSS is a "determinate body" and falls under Explanation 2 of Section 499 of the IPC. He contended that any aggrieved member of such a determinate body has the right to file a complaint. He also argued that the RSS and its Swayamsevaks are inseparable entities.

Champanerkar pointed out that the organization is highly esteemed, noting that the current President, Vice President, and Prime Minister of India are members. He maintained that his pleadings regarding his locus and the nature of the RSS present "triable issues" that cannot be dismissed at a preliminary stage.

The Court raised the issue of whether the suit appears from the statement in the plaint that it is liable to be rejected vide Order VII Rule 11 (a), (b), (c) & (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

The Court observed, "Learned Advocate for the defendant argued that the plaintiff has not locus standi to file the suit on behalf of the so-called organization. So, now it has to be seen whether the suit appears from statement in plaint barred by any law as plaintiff has not locus standi to file the suit?. Hon’ble Bombay High Court in- Rahul Gandhi Vs. Rajesh Mahadev Kunthe & ors, Writ Petition No. 4960 of 2014, decided on 10, March 2015 observed as, “There is no dispute that RSS is a determinate body and it will fall under the Explanation 2 of Section 499 of the IPC. Therefore, any offended member of RSS is said to be aggrieved person and can file a complaint, against a person who intents toharm the reputation of RSS."

Accordingly, the Court rejected the application.

Cause Title: Vivek Shashikant Champanerkar v. Digvijay Singh [R.C.S. NO. 519/2023]

Click here to read/download the Order