Dhyandev Wankhede Made False Insertions In Court Transcripts, Added Sameer Wankhede's Name- Nawab Malik Defends Contempt Petition

A division bench of Justices SJ Kathawalla and Milind Jadhav took Malik's reply affidavit on record and directed petitioner Dhyandev Wankhede to respond to Malik's contentions in a week.

The court was hearing Wankhede's plea alleging ongoing defamation by Malik.

In the last hearing, the bench issued a show-cause notice to Malik asking him to explain why shouldn't action be taken against him for breaching undertakings given to the court and for continuing to defame IRS officer Sameer Wankhede and his family.

In the reply affidavit filed by Malik, he alleged "false insertions/additions" of the transcripts cited by Wankhede to add words "Wankhede" and "Sameer Wankhede" at different places to make it look as if Malik had mentioned those words in the press conference.

The affidavit specifically cites seven such instances where those words were inserted. "I say and submit that the petition should not be entertained and should be dismissed in limine as the petitioner in paragraphs 5(o) (ii) and (iii) of the petition purported to extract portions of transcripts of my statements on 2nd and 3rd Jan after deliberately inserting the name of "Sameer Wankhede" or "Wankhede" at a number of places, where it was infact not mentioned," the affidavit reads.

The affidavit, objecting to the maintainability of the petition says that it should be entertained by the single judge who had passed the interim order for which breach had been alleged by Wankhede, and not a division bench.

The affidavit further denies that the statements made by Malik were "actuated by personal animosity or malice." It states that the undertaking given by him on November 25, 2021 and continued on November 29, was specific to not making any public statements against Dhyandev Wankhede and/or his family members and that the undertaking would not cover acts done by Central Agencies (including the NCB) and conduct of their officers (including Sameer Wankhede) in the course of performance of their public duties.

On a tweet cited by Dhyandev, Malik's reply says that the tweet has nothing to do with Dhyandev or his family members, but it is about a hearing scheduled before the Caste Scrutiny Committee of his complaint against Sameer Wankhede. It further adds that the name Sameer Dawood Wankhede mentioned in the tweet is on the basis of verified documents procured from different sources like the civic body and the school.

On certain other averments raised in the contempt petition, Malik says that those statements were about the wrongful acts committed by a Central Agency Narcotics Control Bureau and its officers, including Sameer Wankhede in the course of performance of their public duties, and therefore, would not constitute any breach of the undertaking given to the court.

The affidavit contends that "republishing or re-tweeting articles already appearing in the social media that are critical of the petitioner and/or his son" would not constitute breach of the undertaking given to the court. "I deny that such re-tweets constitute defamation of the petitioner and/or his son. Without prejudice to the aforesaid I submit that in a contempt petition the petitioners cannot make such a bald allegation without clearly providing/extracting any specific re-tweets. I deny the allegation of malicious intent and malafide motives," the affidavit states.

The dispute between the Wankhedes and Malik dates back to when corruption allegations were made against Sameer Wankhede, then zonal director of the NCB, in the cruise ship drug case involving Aryan Shah Rukh Khan.

Last November, Dnyandeo had filed a defamation suit seeking damages and restraining Malik after the latter alleged that Sameer Wankhede acquired his job under the scheduled caste category despite being a Muslim.

A single bench of Justice Madhav Jamdar had refused ad-interim relief to Dnyandeo to restrain Malik from making statements against the Wankhedes.The single judge, however, observed that Malik had not verified the posts and that his statements appeared to be driven by malice.

The single judge's order was set aside by consent, by a division bench of the High Court on November 29, before whom an undertaking was later given.

However, on December 10, 2021, Malik had tendered an unconditional apology to the High Court for commenting on the Wankhedes despite undertakings to the court in the defamation suit.