A Thane civil court has declined to shut the door on a defamation case targeting senior Congress leader Digvijaya Singh, ruling that the dispute deserves to be tested in trial rather than dismissed at the outset.
The case stems from a social media post Singh shared in July 2023 on X, where he circulated an image and quotations attributed to M.S. Golwalkar, the second chief of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS). Alongside the post, Singh posed pointed questions about Golwalkar’s views on Dalits, backward classes, Muslims, and issues linked to land, water and forests.
Versions of the post that circulated online went further, suggesting Golwalkar favoured British rule over equal rights for marginalised communities. These claims were swiftly disputed by RSS supporters, who described them as misleading and unsupported by credible sources.
The controversy reached court after a Thane-based RSS member, Shashikant Champanerkar, filed a civil suit seeking damages, alleging that the post tarnished the organisation’s reputation and goodwill.
Singh responded by asking the court to reject the suit outright. He argued that the case was not legally maintainable, contending that the RSS is not a registered entity and therefore cannot sue or be sued. He also questioned how an individual member could claim damages on behalf of the organisation or the late Golwalkar. Additional objections were raised on jurisdiction, valuation of the suit, and the absence of a valid cause of action.
Champanerkar countered that an identifiable body can be defamed and that an affected member is entitled to seek legal redress. He maintained that the issues raised by the post were serious and required examination through evidence, not summary dismissal.
In its January order, the court sided with this view. It held that the plaint disclosed a cause of action and that questions about who has the right to sue, or about valuation and court fees, could not be used to throw out the case at the threshold without giving room for correction.
With that, Singh’s application was rejected, clearing the way for the defamation suit to move forward to trial.
