Apprehension Not Unreasonable: Bombay High Court Transfers Defamation Suits By Sanatan Sanstha Against Rationalist’s Son & Journalists
The Bombay High Court said that the apprehension of threat to life is also to be judged from the perspective of the accused and the state of mind of the persons who entertain apprehension is relevant, though not decisive.
Justice N.J. Jamadar, Bombay High Court
The Bombay High Court has ordered the transfer of defamation suits filed by Goa-based Sanatan Sanstha against Hamid Dabholkar, son of late Narendra Dabholkar-the founder of Maharashtra Andhashraddha Nirmulan Samiti (ANIS) and some journalists.
Applications were filed by the accused persons seeking transfer of suits from the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Ponda, Goa, to any Court of competent jurisdiction at Mumbai, Pune or Kolhapur or any other station in the State of Maharashtra.
A Single Bench of Justice N.J. Jamadar observed, “The Applicants who claimed to be pursuing the course which was followed by Dr. Dabholkar and others, apprehend that they might meet the same fate if they participate in the trial in the suits at Ponda. In the totality of the circumstances, the apprehension cannot be said to be unreasonable. The applicants consider themselves to be more vulnerable if the trials are held in a Court which is at a close distance from the headquarter of the Respondent No.1. The real question is not whether Respondent No.1 is actually involved in the activities, but whether there are circumstances which give rise to the apprehension in the mind of the applicants about their safety.”
The Bench was of the view that the apprehension of threat to life is also to be judged from the perspective of the Applicants and the state of mind of the persons who entertain apprehension is relevant, though not decisive.
Advocates Amit Singh and Sandesh Shukla appeared on behalf of the Applicants while Senior Advocate Rajendra Pai, Advocates Sachindra Shetye, and Akshay Pai appeared on behalf of the Respondents.
Facts of the Case
It was alleged by the Respondent-Sanatan Sanstha (Plaintiff) that the Applicants and other co-Defendants (accused persons) made and/or published deliberate false and defamatory statements, thereby defaming the Plaintiff. Hence, it filed Suits for award of damages for the injury caused to the reputation of the Plaintiff. A1-Hamid Dabholkar’s father was a rationalist and founder of ANIS, an organization dedicated to eradicate superstition. A2-Nikhil Wagle was a senior journalist, claimed to have been actively involved in the field of journalism, Managing Editor of newspapers and periodicals and also a socio-political commentator. Sanatan Sanstha was a public charitable trust claiming to be a Hindu spiritual organization with large followers. Late Dr. Narendra Dabholkar (Hamid’s father) was murdered in August 2013 by two then unidentified gunmen and Comrade Govind Pansare, another rationalist was also shot at in Kolhapur and died.
A programme was organized at Kolhapur in the memory of late Comrade Govind Pansare, titled “Shahid Govind Pansare Smriti Jagar Programme.” The Plaintiff instituted a Suit with the assertions that in the said programme, while addressing a public meeting, Applicants made defamatory statements against the Plaintiff. The said defamatory statements were published in the newspaper “Sakal – Kolhapur Edition” in 2017. Hence, the suit for damages of Rs. 10 Crores for the injury caused to the reputation of the Plaintiff, was filed. The Applicants were before the High Court, apprehending serious and heightened threat to their life at Ponda, Goa which was the Respondent’s headquarter. Hence, they sought transfer of suits.
Court’s Observations
The High Court in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, said, “If the matter was to be looked at from the solitary cause of the killing of Dr. Dabholkar, probably different considerations might have come into play. What lends gravity to the situation is the concrete allegations that Comrade Pansare, Prof. Kalburgi and Smt. Lankesh, who were also critical of the thoughts propagated, and the activities undertaken to accomplish those ideas, by the Respondent No.1, also paid the ultimate price. Allegedly, there was a pattern in the murders of abovenamed persons.”
The Court noted that the apprehension of the Applicants stems from the course of action they chose to pursue and they claimed to be highly critical of the Respondent and its ideologies and activities.
“Dr. Hamid Dabholkar (A1) has been provided with ‘X’ category. Mr. Nikhil Wagale (A2) claimed to have received threats and was also offered security, but declined to avail the same. … The fact that a person declines to avail the security does not necessarily mean that there was no threat perception. A journalist may find it difficult to do justice to the profession if he moves around with a posse of policemen”, it added.
The Court remarked that the alleged killings of four persons who opposed the ideas which Respondent and other like-minded organizations propagate, the alleged involvement of the members of the Respondent in the activities which led to their prosecution in Maharashtra and Karnataka, cumulatively render such apprehension reasonable and genuine.
“This Court must and does clarify that the aforesaid inference does not reflect upon either the ability of the Presiding Officer, Civil Court at Goa to render fair and impartial justice, or the general state of law and order in the State of Goa. The aforesaid inference is confined to the exercise of ascertainment as to whether the trial of the suits before the Court at Goa, in the peculiar facts of the case, would advance the cause of justice. The Court finds that the command of dictate of justice would be better served if the suits are transferred from the Court at Goa to a Court in the State of Maharashtra”, further observed the Court.
Conclusion
The Court also said that alleged defamatory articles might have been read by its members/followers in the State of Maharashtra as well and thus, transfer of the suits to the Court in the State of Maharashtra may not operate as an impediment for the Respondent to adduce evidence and prove its case.
“This Court is, therefore, of the view that, it would be expedient in the interest of justice to transfer the suits to the Court of Civil Judge, Sr. Division at Kolhapur, as the parties, including Respondent No.1, can avail the assistance of the legal professionals thereat with ease”, it concluded.
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the Applications and directed the transfer of suits to the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Kolhapur for hearing and final disposal in accordance with law.
Cause Title- Hamid Narendra Dabholkar & Anr. v. Sanatan Sanstha & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025:BHC-AS:37022)
Appearance:
Applicants: Advocates Amit Singh, Sandesh Shukla, Kabeer Pansare, Bhushan Bhadgale, Abhay Nevagi, Vivek Patil, Anasamah Sayed, Devesh Sawant, Afsar Ansari, Amol Thorat, and Vivek Patil.
Respondents: Senior Advocate Rajendra Pai, Advocates Sachindra Shetye, Akshay Pai, Siddhi Bhosale, Ashesha Chheda, Saharsh Sahakhare, Bina R. Pai, Prabhakar M. Jadhav, Suchita R. Chavan, A.P. Mahadik, Akshay Pansare, Nipun Sawane, and Prabhakar M. Jadhav.
