Currently featuring in the Top 10 on the Netflix charts, “Maharaj” is a courtroom drama based on the real-life Maharaj Libel Case. Set in 1862, it follows the life of a social reformer and journalist, Karsandas Mooljee who exposes the reality of a self-styled godman Jadunath Maharaj, also known as JJ. Ironically, the movie, which advocates for freedom of expression, was mired...
Currently featuring in the Top 10 on the Netflix charts, “Maharaj” is a courtroom drama based on the real-life Maharaj Libel Case. Set in 1862, it follows the life of a social reformer and journalist, Karsandas Mooljee who exposes the reality of a self-styled godman Jadunath Maharaj, also known as JJ. Ironically, the movie, which advocates for freedom of expression, was mired in controversy and faced a petition to halt its release for allegedly hurting religious sentiments. Fortunately, the Gujarat High Court lifted the stay order and permitted the release.
Apart from the apparent themes of social injustice, religious exploitation, abuse of power, rape and defamation, it also highlights - Strategic Lawsuit against Public Participation (SLAPP). SLAPP is a lawsuit intended to “censor, intimidate and silence critics”. They often take form of defamation but can also manifest in other type of civil or criminal law petitions.
SLAPP suits have the following characteristics in common:
First, the lawsuit is directed against matters of public interest, which are defined as the cases in which legal rights or interests of the community or public at large are impacted. In the movie, Karsan authored a newspaper article in his newspaper 'Satya Prakash' which revealed how JJ sexually exploited vulnerable female devotees under the disguise of “charan seva”. By writing the article, he questioned the legitimacy of this practice and the authority JJ held over followers of Vaishnavite sect, bringing to light a critical issue of public concern.
Second, the lawsuit is generally frivolous as the aim is not to win the case on legal merits but to bury the defendant in excessive legal costs. JJ filed a defamation case against Karsan and claimed exorbitant amount in damages - Rs. 50,000. When Karsan received the notice, he said “I am a school headmaster. My salary is Rs. 60. Even if I sell my land, my house, my village home, I would have less than Rs. 5000”. JJ was confident that the legal costs involved in the case would pressure Karsan into apologising and abandoning his criticism against JJ.
Third, there is imbalance of power between the two parties wherein the rich and powerful party try to intimidate an individual or smaller organisations with fewer resources. Courts have recognised that freelance journalists, without the support of media houses are more vulnerable to SLAPP suits. JJ, with numerous followers and substantial financial resources, used the lawsuit to deter Karsan, an independent journalist with the aim of hindering his advocacy against JJ's exploitative practices.
The movie is based on a real-life case from 1862. Fast forward 160 years, similar kind of abusive litigation tactics are used to silence journalists, whistleblowers, critics and opposition. United Nations has recognised the increasing use of SLAPP worldwide to stifle dissent and freedom of expression. The Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression has called governments to discourage “frivolous or vexatious legal action” against journalists and news outlets.
Many countries like USA, Canada, Thailand and Indonesia have adopted anti-SLAPP legislation which allows courts to dismiss the abusive lawsuits early on and award costs to the target of the SLAPP proceedings. For instance, a court can grant motion to dismiss if it involves “public participation” (New York), if it is “in furtherance of the right of advocacy on issues of public interest” (Columbia) or if it is in furtherance of free speech (California). However, in jurisdictions without dedicated anti-SLAPP protections, domestic courts bear the crucial responsibility of protecting individuals from these intimidating legal strategies and upholding freedom of expression.
In the absence of a specific anti-SLAPP statute in India, we can locate judicial powers in Civil Procedure Code to deal with SLAPP suits. First, the courts can strike out pleadings if they are “unnecessary, scandalous, frivolous or vexatious” and “an abuse of the process of the Court” under Order 6, Rule 16. Second, they can reject a plaint if it “fails to disclose a cause of action” under Order 7, Rule 11. Third, they have inherent powers to prevent “abuse of the process of the Court” under Part II, section 151. Fourth, they can award compensatory costs in respect of “false and vexatious claims or defences” under Part I, section 35A. In past, the Supreme Court and High Courts have noted that if the intention of proceedings are to cause “inconvenience, harassment and expense” to the other party, then they are vexatious proceedings and an abuse of process of court (Ravinder Singh v Sukhbir Singh, 2013). The same principle can be applied in SLAPP suits.
Together, these judicial powers can significantly mitigate the impact of SLAPP suits by preventing the immediate suppression of speech, deterring potential plaintiffs through the risk of financial penalties and filtering out frivolous claims against critics early in the legal process.
However, SLAPP suits are not widely recognised in India, and judicial intervention in such cases is minimal. In handful of other cases - precisely eight - before the High Courts of Delhi, Bombay and Madras, the defendants had explicitly raised SLAPP related arguments. In six cases, they were not considered by the court. In the other two - Crop Care Federation v Rajasthan Patrika (2009) and Vidyaa v Metallic Bellows (2019), the court dismissed the defamation claims for failure to disclose any cause of action under Order 7, Rule 11 of CPC. The court deemed these cases as textbook examples of intimidatory SLAPP suits filed to “stifle debate”, “muzzle the airing of such [critical] views” and to “scuttle the defendant” from seeking rightful remedies.
It was not until recently that the Supreme Court noted the trend of increasing SLAPP suits. While vacating the temporary injunction granted for removal of the article published by Bloomberg, the three-judge bench observed that SLAPP suits are filed by people with “immense economic power” to “prevent public from knowing about or participating in the important affairs in the public interest” (Bloomberg Television v Zee Entertainment (2024)).
As the SLAPP suits are increasing, it is crucial to recognise them through legislative and judicial intervention to protect the freedom of speech and expression. This will ensure that today's Karsans can speak out against powerful figures on important public interest issues, without being dragged into costly and time-consuming legal battles that could ultimately intimidate them, exhaust their resources and deter them from speaking up.
Ritika Goyal is a legal researcher at the Columbia Global Freedom of Expression. Views are personal.