On September 3rd, the Bombay High Court directed five defamation suits by Sanatan Sanstha in Ponda district of Goa, be shifted to Kolhapur in Maharashtra. The bench acknowledged that the defendants’ fear of intimidation and worries regarding a fair trial in Ponda were “genuine” because the organisation had local presence and a history of violence associated with reporting assaults upon dissenters.
The order pointed out that venue transfer was proper to ensure neutral proceedings and the physical safety of defendants and witnesses. The cases are against rationalist Hamid (Narendra) Dabholkar, journalist Nikhil Wagle and others for allegedly connecting Sanatan Sanstha to the killings of famous rationalists and journalists. The judgment brings to the fore a contentious intersection of defamation law, public interest speech, and the longer, contested history of criminal charges and probes into murders of dissidents that many observers and some investigating bodies have tied, directly or indirectly, to members or militants affiliated with the Sanstha.
What is Sanatan Sanstha?
Sanatan Sanstha is a tight-knit, secretive organisation which presents itself as striving to propagate what it terms “Sanatan Dharma” (a term applied to several Hindu religious organisations). In reporting and analysis in the media and among civil society it is most often represented as right-wing Hindu with revivalist inspiration; some aspects of its rhetoric and activities have been condemned by commentators as exclusionist or militant in orientation. The Sanstha, on its own part, has consistently ruled out organisational complicity in crimes and has employed civil law (including defamation cases) to resist those who openly link it with murders. Since the organisation is not a banned group, public characterisations of its ideology and activities are based upon investigative journalism, charge-sheets, and scholarly and journalistic analysis and not upon a statutorily recognised designation.
The Origin, Parties and Claims of the Defamation Suits
Between 2017 and 2018, the Goa-headquartered organisation Sanstha filed multiple civil defamation suits in the civil court, senior division, at Ponda (Goa) against a small group of public figures, including Hamid Dabholkar (son of the slain rationalist Dr. Narendra Dabholkar) and senior journalists such as Nikhil Wagle and others, alleging that statements and publications by them had falsely linked the Sanstha to several high-profile killings and thereby harmed its reputation.
The Sanstha alleged that in a public meeting commemorating Govind Pansare, individuals, including Nikhil Wagle and Dr. Hamid Dabholkar, have made defamatory statements about the Sanstha and the newspaper published those statements under the headline, “New terrorism of anti-nationalists out of selfish motive.” The Sanstha alleged that Hamid Dabholkar, Nikhil Wagle, and others made comment attributing the murders of Govind Pansare and Dr. Narendra Dabholkar to the Sanatan Sanstha. The lawsuits allege the statements were made at their speeches, and the newspaper (Dainik Sakal – Kolhapur Edition) published those speeches in 2017 with the allegations. Sanatan Sanstha has argued that this is false and malicious.
The suits claim massive damages (accounts say up to ₹10 crore in certain cases). The suits were filed amidst a heated, contesting public discussion over whether fringe group members or sympathizers were responsible for the murders of renowned rationalists and journalists.
Those who were sued by Sanatan Sanstha have always argued that their comments were either fair comment, on the basis of investigative journalism and official accusations, or in furtherance of public interest discussion regarding violent attacks on contrarian voices. As a response to the civil suits, the defendants have contended that facing trial in Ponda, near Sanatan Sanstha’s headquarters, risked their safety and the impartiality of proceedings and hence sought transfer of venue to the Bombay High Court. The High Court held that fear of endangerment to life and impartial trial “seemed real and reasonable” and, on 3 September 2025, directed transfer of five such cases from Ponda to a court in Kolhapur, Maharashtra. The order of transfer doesn’t determine the substantive defamation suits; it determines forum and fairness.
The violent events typically associated with the Sanstha – what investigations actually found
Public discourse and multiple investigative reports have linked a small number of violent murders of rationalists, activists, and journalists – specifically the murders of Narendra Dabholkar (2013), Govind Pansare (2015), M. M. Kalburgi (2015), and Gauri Lankesh (2017) – to overlapping suspect networks. The important consideration is that the factual posture varies by case: in each case, investigating agencies (i.e., state SITs, the CBI or ATS) developed conspiracy theories and executed arrests; in some cases, chargesheets alleged persons with organizational affiliation, in other cases courts have framed charges, and in still other cases, the prosecution or conviction remains contested on appeal.
Narendra Dabholkar (August 2013, Pune): Following a lengthy investigation, the CBI arrested several suspects, and in 2021, attempted to invoke UAPA provisions against several suspects, treating the murder as a large-scale conspiracy; the CBI’s case has alleged connections to Sanatan-linked networks and generally has at times referenced certain counts as terror activity. Charges were framed against a group of suspects in September 2021, and the investigation has been contested in special court litigation. Reports describe the CBI inquiring into conspiracies associated and alleging that some accused conspired under the terrorism statute.
Govind Pansare (Kolhapur, February 2015): Police and SIT inquiries led to the arrest of Sameer Gaika, who police labelled an activist for the Sanatan Sanstha; charges were brought, the case moved through courts, and multiple hearings were held about since with varietals on the framing of charges and trials. Local courts granted bail to some accused at times, and the timeline for adjudication of the case by prosecution and hearing judges has been protracted. Police reports from the time conveyed that there were inquiries to assess the political and organizational right-wing networks the accused were part of.
- M. Kalburgi (August 2015, Dharwad): There was a Special Investigation Team (SIT) involved in a murder investigation against Kalburgi, which resulted in an extensive chargesheet that detailed many accused and described a plot devised by individuals aligned with an organised group; in its filings, the SIT indicated tactical similarities relating to both Kalburgi’s death and Lankesh’s murder. As was the case with the other murders, portions of the investigative work rested on recovered items, interviews with witnesses, and movements of those later charged; in the Karnataka courts, prosecutions and bail applications have continued.
Gauri Lankesh (September 2017, Bengaluru): The Karnataka police conducted investigatory work (which included an investigation and review by both the SIT/CBI) and publish a lengthy chargesheet in 2018-19 that revealed many accused individuals. The findings also labelled the suggested murderers as part of an organised syndicate. There have been multiple accused arrested, and the court proceedings/hearings have been slow (to date); most recently in early 2025, several of the accused have been released on bail. These issues have touched off public discussion, concern, and criticism of the benefit of a quality investigation into the murder.
In several of these criminal cases, investigators have asserted or placed on record evidence, indicating that individual suspects are associated with networks where individuals have been or currently are members or associates of Sanatan Sanstha; in some cases, evidence is on record to support charges under serious criminal statutes (including sections of UAPA). However, whether there is judicial finding of organizational responsibility, that is, whether Sanatan Sanstha as an organizational entity is found to have ordered, executed or coordinated the killings is a separate but important legal question and in respect of each case is different; and the court record for these cases is mixed: there are a variety of arrests, chargesheets have been filed, some convictions, and continuing appeals and bail orders.
Why are so many accused out on bail?
Bail is the rule and jail is the exception – this is a principle firmly grounded in Article 21 (right to life and personal liberty). Courts consider whether a prima facie case is made out, the seriousness of the charges against the accused, any threat of tampering with evidence or threats to witnesses, as well as the period that the accused has already spent in custody. The Supreme Court has expressed disapproval of those who are detained for extended periods before conviction. For lengthy delay cases, courts also grant bail once the accused has been detained for a significant period.
All four cases have been characterized by investigation delays, piecemeal charge-sheets, and an extended period before the framing of charges. In the Pansare case, for instance, the Bombay High Court of January 2025 noted that the accused had remained in custody for years without a trial, and granted bail on the basis of delay. In the Kalburgi and Lankesh matters, courts have identified extended periods of pre-conviction detention as a reason to grant bail.
Courts are not intended to conduct a mini-trial at bail. If the evidence appears circumstantial or contested or there are gaps in the prosecution’s case (as argued in some defence applications) judges may be more inclined to grant bail, while noting that guilt or innocence will be determined in the trial stage. In these cases, courts have typically debated whether testimony of witnesses, recovery of weapons, or alleged links of conspiracy existed in the case against each accused, and that this gave courts leeway to provide bail pending trial.
Should bail have been reconsidered in the light of the alleged influence of the accused?
Critics – including the families of victims and various civil society groups – say that many of those accused are represented by powerful ideological or organisational networks which present a greater risk of witness intimidation or other similar interference with justice, and thus their influence should be considered more heavily in the bail decision. In practice, the courts in India usually want specific evidence of attempts to tamper or intimidate before using “influence” as a basis to refuse bail. Influence alone, without proof of its misuse, is generally not sufficient.
A more nuanced assessment of the case suggests that stricter scrutiny of bail was warranted, but they could not categorically deny bail. On one hand, there was a notion of ideology behind the crimes – the targeting of rationalists and journalists, and given a history of threats directed at activists, stronger bail conditions could have been imposed, such as electronic monitoring, witness protection, or limits on associational activities. Courts may have also legitimately denied bail where evidence previously documented networks that sheltered the accused, or attempts to tamper with witnesses. On the other hand, blanket denial of bail, merely on the grounds of alleged influence, CT affiliation, or express outrage, could lead to the violation of Article 21. Judicial discretion must be based on clear evidence of the accused intimidating, tampering, or engaging in new criminal activity, not mere conjecture. Otherwise, justice is delayed and denied denies bail and, with each day given that they have been detained, are subjected to a punishment without a conviction, many for over a decade in detention without any judgment.
Free Expressions and Defamation
The central issue in the defamation lawsuits revolves around the conflict between the freedom of expression and the right to reputation. Activists and journalists such as Hamid Dabholkar and Nikhil Wagle contend that their claims that Sanatan Sanstha is linked to the murders of rationalists were made in good faith, based on charge-sheets, investigative journalism, and the larger context of ideological violence. Their view is that this kind of commentary is protected by Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution as a form of fair comment and public interest speech. Sanatan Sanstha argues, on the other hand, that the claim that it is a “terrorist outfit,” or that it can be collectively responsible for crimes allegedly committed by individuals, constitutes defamation and unfairly defames the organisation. The courts will need to carefully balance protecting organisations from false and malicious allegations while allowing for democratic debate in the realm of violent ideas and accountability.
Fair trial and physical safety in a venue
The Bombay High Court’s ruling that the suits would be moved from Ponda, Goa, to Kolhapur, Maharashtra, reflects a common problem in political litigation: how to be confident that a trial will take place in a setting free of intimidation or bias. Transfers of venue under Section 24 of the CPC are not typical; they only become necessary where litigants can show reasonable apprehension and can plead otherwise. Here, the court found that the Sanstha’s physical presence in Ponda would negatively affect the defendants’ ability to safely and without intimidation defend themselves. The order reflects that a fair trial, and the provision for the programs and protection of innocent persons is not only the rules of procedure; it is fundamentally: the practical realities of intimidation, the availability of security, and local influence.
Accountability for Violence Inspired by Ideology
The broader societal issue comes down to how to hold accountable extremist organisations where acts of violence are allegedly executed by individual members, but where demonstrating responsibility by the organisation in court is incredibly challenging. Indian criminal law uniquely focuses on the individual and does not identify or prosecute ideologies unless a group or organisation is banned under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act or other statutes. In the cases of Dabholkar, Pansare, Kalburgi, and Lankesh, agencies and investigators noted patterns of conspiracies, overlapping organizational networks, and ideology in this rationale. Yet, the responsibility of organizations has proven difficult to prove in a court of law, creating an abyss between the public perception of organizational participation and the legal standard of beyond reasonable doubt. This has frustration among victims’ families and civil society, observing delayed or furthermore diluted, meant of justice.
Insights and Recommendations
A key takeaway from this case was the importance of enhancing free speech protections when activists and journalists write about matters of public concerns. Defamation law cannot become a sword that hangs over anyone asking questions about violence, ideology or accountability. The courts can lessen the risk by better applying the fair comment defence, protecting genuine free speech in the public interest against crippling damages claims. There should be a higher standard of malice before punitive damages are awarded.
The guarantee of a fair trial, is equally important. The transfer order by the Bombay High Court shows that venue neutrality is particularly important in cases charged with political controversy. However, fairness does not stop at a transferral; stronger witness protection programmes, neutral monitoring of trials and bail conditions that do not allow for intimidation or interferences are also necessary. In the case of a politically charged criminal trial where the accused is alleged to be part of influential networks, the justice system must have safeguards in place proportionate to the risks.
The larger problem of delay also needs to be addressed. The Dabholkar, Pansare, Kalburgi, and Lankesh trials have gone on for many years, leading to a loss of public confidence and comfort provided to victims’ families. Support for reform like fast-track courts, adequate resources for prosecution, and a requirement for periodic review by a judge may help. Judgments made swiftly would address the system’s reliance on lengthy detention before trial while reconciling the rights of accused persons and victims.
On the point of organisational responsibility, Indian criminal law has focused on individuals. However, if a pattern of violence is happening, and that pattern can be credibly traced to a group or network within the group, then administrative remedies may be appropriate. Monitoring or reporting on financial records, conducting audits of organisations, or creating additional registration requirements could be some possible routes; provided that those remedies provide constitutional protection against arbitrary bans. In this way, the law may honour civil liberties, but still comply with the dangers of violent ideology.
Finally, the judiciary and legislature must address the issue of the misuse of defamation cases as a means of coercion; or as strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPPs). Procedures like the early dismissal of frivolous cases or cost-shifting to vexatious plaintiffs may help to shield critics from being pulled through the ringer of costly and lengthy litigation. In this way, there can be safeguards for both the right to reputation and the constitutional guarantee of freedom of expression; and the abuse of law will be restrained.
Fundamentally, this occasion is about recommitting India to stand against the persecution of dissent. Rationalists, journalists, and activists play an essential role in a pluralist democracy, and they should not be silenced through the threat of violence or vexatious lawsuits. A vigilant judiciary, independent prosecutors, and legal reform can work together to create a courtroom towards accountability and away from coercion.
(The legal research team of CJP consists of lawyers and interns; this community resource has been worked on by Preksha Bothara)
Related
Gauri Lankesh Murder Case: Chargesheet names Sanatan Sanstha
Death of a Rationalist: Govind Pansare
Court Acts on Misinformation: FIR against channels for wrongly branding teacher a terrorist