PM, Prez from RSS, how can it be compared to Taliban: Javed Akhtar asked in defamation suit
India Today
In the defamation suit against Javed Akhtar, the plaintiff has questioned how can the RSS be compared to the Taliban when the president, prime minister and several Union ministers belong to the outfit.
The plaintiff has filed a reply to the dismissal of suit application preferred by Bollywood lyricist Javed Akhtar in a defamation case against him for allegedly drawing parallels between the RSS and the Taliban.
"The current President, Vice President, Prime Minster and several Union minsters are from this esteemed organisation. How can someone compare this organisation with Taliban," the reply stated.
The suit, filed by RSS activist Vivek Champanerkar in the court of the additional chief judicial magistrate and joint civil judge (senior division) in Thane, seeks Re 1 as compensation from Akhtar. The court in September 2021 had ordered issuance of a show-cause notice to Akhtar in the defamation suit.
Javed Akhtar had raised the issue of maintainability of Champanekar's plea while stating that the alleged defamatory remarks are towards non-determinable, non-identifiable, non-defined and non-definite body/class of persons, and therefore, there is no specific person or even a specific class of persons who has been allegedly defamed.
Akhtar also stated that even in the case that a specific class of persons has been allegedly defamed, the said specific class could file the plaint, and not Champanerkar in his individual capacity. This is especially because there is no specific imputation in the alleged defamatory statements towards him.
Through advocate Aditya Mishra, Champanerkar filed his reply quoting a judgment of the Bombay High Court in Rahul Gandhi versus Rajesh Kunte (an RSS functionary). “In the judgment, the high court had said that RSS is a determinate body, and any offending member can file a complaint.”
The reply further stated that Akhtar's application is “frivolous and filed with ulterior motives” to prolong the matter. “It is neither tenable in law nor in facts and hence it be rejected with imposition of exemplary cost,” it said.
