The Mumbai Sessions Court recently rejected a criminal revision application filed by Javed Akhtar against summons issued by the court for allegedly defaming the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) by comparing it to the Taliban in a televised interview, saying that the RSS’s reputation was tarnished as a result of the comparison.
In a televised interview in 2021, Javed Akhtar compared the RSS to the Taliban. Advocate Santosh Dubey subsequently filed a criminal defamation action against Akhtar, stating that his comment hurt his sentiments because he had been a swayamsevak of the RSS since his childhood and that many individuals had asked him to disassociate from the group following Akhtar’s comment.
While rejecting Aktar’s plea, Judge Priti Kumar Ghule noted that his statements have weight and have harmed the reputation of the RSS, which is a well-known organisation with a large number of members and supporters.
“The petitioner’s [Javed Akhtar’s] statement in the interview was broadcast on a national channel and on YouTube. The reputation of RSS volunteers and sympathisers is tarnished, and the world is sent a message that the RSS is identical to the Taliban in Afghanistan. As a result, there is enough evidence to indicate that RSS’s reputation has suffered,” the judge stated.
The court further stated that comparing the RSS to the Taliban, who are involved in inhumane activities, has the potential to undermine the RSS’s reputation.
After holding that RSS was defamed by Javed Akhtar, the judge further stated, “It was observed that going by explanation 2 of Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code, if a well-defined class is defamed, each and every member of the class can file a complaint. To create an imputation of an association or collection of persons as such, there must be some definite body of persons capable of being identified and to whom the defamatory thing can be said to apply.”
The Mulund Magistrate court summoned Javed Akhtar to appear in court on defamation allegations. Akhtar’s lawyer will file a plea before the Bombay High Court against this order.
