Jay Shah defamation case

Chief Justice Misra Assigns Jay Shah Case Against The Wire to Different SC Bench

Matter to be listed for April 18, initiation of criminal proceedings stayed till then.

New Delhi: The Wire‘s petition seeking quashing of the criminal defamation case initiated against it by Jay Shah, son of BJP president Amit Shah, will be heard by another bench of the Supreme Court, a three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra said on Thursday.

Though the bench was not specified, the date of April 18 has been set for final arguments.

Jay Shah filed the criminal defamation case in October last year following the publication of a story in The Wire on his business affairs. He also filed a separate civil defamation suit seeking Rs 100 crore in damages from The Wire, its editors, its ombudsman – whose task is to address reader complaints post-publication – and the journalist who wrote the story, Rohini Singh.

The Wire is appealing the Gujarat high court’s refusal to quash the criminal proceedings.

An injunction granted to Shah by the civil court in Ahmedabad soon after the story’s publication was reversed by the same court but later reimposed by the Gujarat high court. The Wire has also sought to appeal that decision in the Supreme Court but the matter has yet to be listed.

Last month, when the criminal defamation matter was first taken up by his bench, Justice Misra had stayed the trial court proceedings and set April 12 as the next date of hearing. The other two judges on his bench are Justice A.M. Khanwilkar and Justice D.Y. Chandrachud.

But with the same judges also involved in the ongoing Aadhaar matter, the bench decided to send The Wire’s writ to an “appropriate bench”.

11 defamation cases against The Wire so far

Including the two cases – criminal and civil defamation – filed by Jay Amit Shah, The Wire is dealing at present with 10 cases of defamation. Six of those – three criminal defamation cases and three civil defamation cases seeking damages of Rs 100 crore each – have been filed by different companies of the Adani group. Two civil defamation cases have been filed by BJP MP Rajeev Chandrasekhar seeking damages of Rs 20 crore each for an article on his involvement with Republic TV and another on his membership of the parliamentary standing committee for defence. The total damages being claimed against The Wire add up to Rs 440 crore.

An eleventh case – of criminal defamation – was filed in a court in Mizoram by a company owned by Rajya Sabha MP and Zee Television owner Subhash Chandra, but later withdrawn after The Wire obtained a stay on the proceedings from the Gauhati high court.

Injunction Against Publishing Facts Cannot Be Open-Ended

A temporary injunction against publishing follow up stories on a subject, if left open-ended, can assume the nature of a near permanent injunction.

Amit Shah and son Jay Shah. Credit: PTI

Ahmedabad: An important legal-constitutional question, with serious implications for the media industry as a whole, has arisen in the Rs 100 crore civil defamation suit filed by Jay Amit Shah against The Wire over an investigative story which gave a factual account of how some of his businesses had grown 16,000 times after the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) government came to power.

A civil court in Ahmedabad gave a temporary (ad interim) injunction against The Wire prohibiting it from freshly reproducing or discussing further the original contents of the Jay Shah story. The Wire has challenged the ad interim injunction and arguments from both sides have concluded at the civil court in Ahmedabad.

The question is whether an ad interim (temporary) injunction against publishing follow up stories on a subject can become open ended and therefore assume the nature of a near permanent injunction. The lawyer for Jay Amit Shah, Nirupam Nanavati, argued that in money/property suits injunctions are granted and status quo maintained till the main suit is settled one way or the other. And the same would apply to the grant of injunction in the Jay Shah case. Nanavati was thus suggesting that the temporary injunction against further publication of follow up stories from the original investigation of Jay Shah’s businesses can be continued till the Rs 100 crore damages suit is settled.

“But the law is precisely the opposite,” argued Nitya Ramakrishnan, lawyer for The Wire. A claim of damages on that very ground disentitles him to an injunction, she said. Jay Shah cannot file a defamation suit and simultaneously seek an open-ended injunction preventing The Wire from bringing more facts to establish the truth of all the assertions in its investigations. Ramakrishnan further argued that Jay Shah had in the first place acknowledged in writing all the facts The Wire had published in regard to his business activities – turnover, profits/losses, loans – which were accessed from the public record maintained by the Registrar of Companies (RoC) under the Ministry of Corporate Affairs. The Wire fully published the reply of Jay Shah’s lawyer along with the original story where it was acknowledged that the facts and figures stated were not untrue.

At one stage, Jay Shah’s lawyer, Nanavati, sought to suggest to the court that the veracity of the figures quoted from the RoC records can be examined at the trial stage. To this Ramakrishnan’s response was one would for Jay Shah’s sake assume that his declaration to the RoC is true and authentic and if his own lawyer entertains doubts on that, it bodes ill for Jay Shah because mis-declaration before the RoC is an offence.

Of course, the main argument by Jay Shah’s counsel was that the injunction can be continued till the civil defamation case is decided. If the suit takes five years to be decided after elaborate examination of evidence and witnesses, the injunction against the publication of follow ups of the original story shall continue for five years! Can this be justified at all under our present constitution which guarantees freedom of speech and the citizen’s right to know, asked Ramakrishnan.

Ramakrishnan argued that when an interim injunction is being considered, the constitutional right to freedom of speech and expression stands on a much higher pedestal than an individual’s reputation and privacy under Article 21. Indeed, there is no right of reputation against the truth and no right of reputation or privacy against matters of record.

Conjectural claims and allegations are not grounds on which freedom of speech can be restricted – under the constitution.

Ramakrishnan told the civil judge, “In law, an injunction against the right to freedom of expression stands on a reverse footing than money suit or a property suit. Temporary injunction cannot be given if the defendant says he will and can prove what he has stated is true. Here we have not only said we shall prove it but have shown the material we have used: RoC filings, their own reply to our queries in which they have admitted to the figures in the story.”

“There is no question of injunction because there is an unbroken line of judgments, from the Delhi, Madras and the Bombay high courts that freedom of speech shall not be restrained if truth is pleaded and material basis for the comment is shown. Supreme Court judgments have also said that matters of record will not be restrained,” she added.

“But most importantly, at the stage of interim injunction when there is the question of balancing two rights, the people’s right to know stands on a higher footing. Because the law says freedom of expression is itself public interest, reflecting the citizens’ right to know,” Ramakrishnan argued.

Nariman: ‘Ruling Party’s Support to Private Person’s Defamation Suit Must Be Condemned’

Speakers at Press Club of India meeting unequivocally criticised the frequent use of defamation as a means of stifling and threatening the media.

Jay Amit Shah (left) and his father, BJP president Amit Shah. Credit: BJP

New Delhi: “Any support extended by a political party in power to a private person’s defamation suit against another private person (of any profession or calling) is condemnable and must be condemned,” said eminent jurist Fali S. Nariman on Wednesday.

His observation, made in a written message to the Press Club of India, was read out at a meeting to discuss the defamation cases filed against The Wire by BJP president Amit Shah’s son for reporting on his business affairs.

Shah’s son, Jay Shah, has filed a criminal defamation case and a civil defamation case seeking Rs 100 crore in damages. He has already secured an ex-parte ad interim injunction against The Wire from a civil court in Ahmedabad which its editors say they intend to challenge.

The PCI meeting was called to discuss “Issues arising out of support extended by the ruling party and government to a private person’s defamation suit against journalists”. Chaired by veteran journalist Anand Sahay, the gathering was addressed by PCI president Gautam Lahiri, lawyers Prashant Bhushan and Karuna Nandy and the former editor of the Economic and Political Weekly, Paranjoy Guha Thakurta.

In his opening remarks, Lahiri said anyone was free to file a defamation suit but the Press Club of India was shocked to see “the government machinery rallying to defend a private citizen … That is why we have called this meeting.” He said the PCI had also invited railways minister Piyush Goyal – who had come out in defence of Jay Shah, described by his lawyer as a “private citizen” – and Union law minister Ravi Shankar Prasad to give their point of view. “We received a message from Goyal that he had “noted” our invitation,” said Lahiri, while Prasad did not reply at all.

Every speaker unequivocally criticised the frequent use of defamation as a means of stifling and threatening the media. “If the proverbial fourth estate is to speak truth to power, play an adversarial role to guard our democratic structure, then journalists have to come together. If you believe that this is important to strengthen democratic institutions and democracy, then the media has to speak against the indiscriminate use of SLAPP (strategic litigation against public participation) suits,” said Thakurta.

Himself a victim of such SLAPP suits by what he called as “some of the richest persons in India”, Guha Thakurta said, “This kind of use of the law, on occasions misuse of the law, has become rampant. The way forward may be to have a kind of a fund, perhaps instituted by organisations like PCI, to which public-spirited citizens can contribute.”

Describing his experiences of having fought such defamation cases in the past, he added, “I think never before in the 40 years that I have been a journalist have I seen defamation suits being used in the manner that they are being today – to stifle the voices of dissent. India is one of the few counties in the world where defamation is both a civil and criminal offence. The UK used to be known as the defamation capital of the world but even there the laws have changed.”

“I am saying a social activist, or a journalist should not have to face the threat of being put behind bars just because a person does not like what she or he writes. While the judiciary has the right, I wonder under what circumstances should the judiciary pass an injunction without giving the other side, so to say, the right to be heard,” said Thakurta.

Bhushan said that in civil defamation, truth is an absolute defence. “Civil defamation can sustain only when you have said something false which maligns the reputation of the person. But if the facts of the story are correct, it is irrelevant whether the person’s reputation is trashed or not.”

“In criminal defamation, however, you have to not only show that the story is true but also that it is a matter of public interest. The Wire’s story is obviously a matter of public interest – where the businesses of the son of India’s largest political party is in question,” he added.

Bhushan criticised the role of a section of the judiciary and a large section of mainstream media. He said that he was surprised that the courts in Ahmedabad thought it fit to issue summons to The Wire in the civil and criminal defamation cases. “It is a purely factual story, a mere recital of facts on record. The first thing the criminal court should have asked before proceeding to issue summons is to ask what is false in the story. It should have been thrown out right at the threshold.”

Bhushan gave the example of the Supreme Court of the United States, which had refused to pass any injunction on the New York Times (NYT) for publishing the Pentagon papers. “In the Pentagon papers case, in which the US government went to the court to prevent the NYT from publishing the papers and had argued that this may reveal information that would jeopardise the security of the country, the court had shot it down categorically. The law on this is clear.” Similarly, he came down heavily on the civil court issuing an injunction on The Wire without even hearing it.

“Today, I read a report that said summons were issued because The Wire did not give enough time to Jay Shah to respond. The law is clear that it is not incumbent on a publication to seek a response, if it is convinced about the truth of the story. It is a different matter that The Wire published the story with a detailed response from Shah’s lawyer.”

Both Thakurta and Bhushan said that until now, Jay Shah has not refuted any fact of the story. “An ex parte injunction is unheard of in such a matter. It only goes on to show that the authorities feel that they have a section of the judiciary under their control. This is highly unfortunate,” Bhushan argued.

He also came down heavily on the role of the mainstream media. “The day the story came out, a section of the mainstream media did not cover it. It even blacked out the press conferences the opposition parties held on the revelations of the story. Only when BJP leader and minister Piyush Goyal jumped in to defend Jay Shah did the bulk of the media report on the issue. Thanks to social media, it was not possible to black out the story despite other intentions of those in power.”

But he said that this is alarming for our democracy because “most of the mainstream media has been compromised either by inducements, or corporate control, or threats and fear.” Thakurta, too, raised an important issue. “Truth is supposed to be your biggest defence. But no one is questioning the truth of the story. Instead, most are questioning the motive of the reporter who has written it. This has been the case with The Wire story and many other cases.”

Karuna Nundy flagged the need for the media to have an organised mechanism to fight such cases. “I think that organisations need to get together to make sure that the legal process itself is not the punishment. I know the Editors Guild is taking up the cases, but a more concerted campaign needs to happen. What The Wire has demonstrated is heroism but what we primarily need is structural change,” said Nundy

She added that “the reason the story is one of the most important stories of our times is that it was as much an artefact as it was a piece of journalism as people were amazed to find someone raising questions about Amit Shah.

Journalists’ Unions Condemn Defamation Case Filed By Jay Shah Against The Wire

“If information on the affairs of close relatives of powerful politicians is to be withheld by the media, the only result will be the secrecy of power that will spawn all manner of corruption,” say the DUJ and NAJ.

“If information on the affairs of close relatives of powerful politicians is to be withheld by the media, the only result will be the secrecy of power that will spawn all manner of corruption,” say the DUJ and NAJ.

Amit Shah and son Jay Shah. Credit: PTI

New Delhi: In a resolution passed on October 15, the Delhi Union of Journalists and the National Alliance of Journalists have condemned the criminal defamation case filed by Jay Shah against The Wire. The BJP president’s son filed the case after The Wire published an investigative report detailing the sudden increase in turnover of a company owned by Jay Shah after the Narendra Modi government came to power. This case, the journalists’ groups said, is part of a larger pattern of defamation cases being filed to “target journalists and news agencies” and “terrorise or browbeat them”.

The full text of their resolution is reproduced below.

There is something particularly undemocratic about the use of defamation suits and prosecutions when they seek to protect those in power. When used against the media they are even more distasteful, for the aim then is not only to intimidate but also to prevent the people from access to information.

When those close to powerful personages are seen receiving unusual advantages, then the people have a right to know whether the advantages are legitimate or wrought by influence. The transparency that law enforces on corporates is not meant to be stymied by defamation actions,when information in the public record is reproduced or relied upon in the media.

The government has come out in defence of Jay Shah. And Jay Shah himself has called The Wire report and story “The Golden Touch of Amit Shah” false.

The DUJ demands to know which statement in the report or story is false, for till date there is no clarification on where the falsehood, if any lies. Conversely, if there is no factual error in the story, it is even more important to know why Jay Shah finds it derogatory— for then, clearly, it is not the media that has contributed to the derogation of his reputation but the factual situation to which he alone has contributed.

Also read: The Value of News That Is Paid for by Readers

The DUJ is asking for a clear statement from the Union government on both the aforesaid points. The Union government has stepped in to assert the legitimacy of Jay Shah’s business, and therefore it is for the government to tell the people what part of the story is false and then demonstrate why it is false.

If information on the affairs of close relatives of powerful politicians is to be withheld by the media, the only result will be the secrecy of power that will spawn all manner of corruption. If state power is used to maintain defamation suits and prosecutions in order to shroud the affairs of public persons and their close relatives, instead of coming out with the truth in the public domain, it is not only an assault on the press but a direct assault of constitutional democracy itself.

Backstory: When People Start Asking Questions, There Will Be No Room to Hide

A fortnightly column from The Wire’s public editor.

Mao Tse-Tung is believed to have said, “Investigation may be likened to the long months of pregnancy, and solving a problem to the day of birth. To investigate a problem is, indeed, to solve it.” I must confess at the outset that I have no independent way to investigate whether a leader like Mao, who had himself many a political secret to hide, really did say this, but I was drawn to the quotation particularly because of its concluding observation: “To investigate a problem is, indeed, to solve it.” This, after all, is the winning argument for the investigative story – unearthing an issue of public import, which lies buried or forgotten or seen as too inconvenient, even dangerous, to address. The Wire piece, ‘The Golden Touch of Jay Amit Shah’ (October 8), which has been shared over 147,000 times since it was put out last Sunday, does just that.

This story on Jay Shah, the son of the powerful BJP president Amit Shah, was in many ways an investigation waiting to be done. The fact that mainstream media entities far more powerful, both financially and in terms of influence, than The Wire have chosen not to do so and, worse, ignored or tamped down its significance after it was broken, reflects one of Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s biggest achievements in his three-and-a-half years in power: neutering if not neutralising the media. The diminishing returns of a policy of being ‘The Master’s Voice’ will soon become evident to the masters of the mainstream, as people increasingly shift to digital sources of news (‘The Online Media May be Anarchic, but Shows More Spirit than Mainstream Media’, October 13) and if the mainstream media is to recover lost ground, as we hope they do, it will need to rediscover the long-term value of distance from power rather than the immediate gains of cleaving to power.

But this column is really about the investigative story that has been long acknowledged as a badge of honour for any media platform worth its salt. We don’t have to recall what Watergate did for the reputation of The Washington Post, the details of that story still survive 45 years later; this country too is not short on examples of such journalism. Many of the investigations conducted by Indian journalists have passed into legend. The purchase of Kamala, a tribal girl, by a newspaper reporter, even made it to the big screen; others like the Bofors investigations have become central points of reference while still others have been rescued from the realm of amnesia by the reminiscences of their reporters. For instance, in his 2014 book, Off the Record, senior journalist Ajith Pillai talks about his investigation into how a brigadier, accused of not preventing Pakistani infiltrators from entering Indian soil and setting off the Kargil war, had in fact been falsely framed. It is through such retelling that the aura of this important form of journalism kept alive.

Much like a trellis for a delicate sapling, the investigative story needs an enabling framework. Three aspects are key: the professionalism, courage and contacts of those who undertake investigative journalism; supportive editors and the media organisations in general; and, finally, the public that responds to the investigation and takes ownership of it. In that sense, every great investigative story is a team effort. It can even be considered a private-public partnership!

In the case involving Jay, the reporter has displayed a remarkable maturity in the face of vicious trolling. As she put it in her widely read Facebook post, her primary job as a journalist was to speak truth to power: “I don’t do the stories I do because I am ‘brave’. I do them because that’s journalism and not bravery.” She also had the unqualified support of both the editors and the organisation. There was, in other words, a conducive environment for that story to be investigated, prepared, and circulated so that it could emerge as a topic of national conversation.

The manner in which The Wire refused to buckle under the threat of a Rs 100-crore defamation case will, I hope, go on to encourage media organisations, big and small, to take on the challenge of the increasingly belligerent SLAPP suits (‘We Need an Anti-SLAPP Law To Encourage and Protect Free Press’, October 12) coming their way. As noted in the piece, ‘Jay Amit Shah’s Case Against The Wire Is an Attempt to Censor, Intimidate Media at Large’, October 12), “Defamation cases have…become the litigation sport of the privileged and it is often the case that powerful individuals and corporations do not file defamation cases to win or to safeguard their reputations, rather their interest lies in obtaining immediate injunctive relief and drowning their opposition in protracted and expensive litigation.” One of the founding editors of The Wire put it well by observing that a “defamation complaint, whatever its merit or lack of it, is no explanation to the public, and can never be a substitute for democratic accountability” (‘Jay Amit Shah and the Khandvalas: Corporate Governance is Also About the Company One Keeps’, October 12).

But what was possibly the most conspicuous in the present case was the third leg of the support structure we spoke about: public backing. Right from the moment this story broke, there was a flood of support for The Wire. To get a sense of this, one need just to go to the response section of the report under discussion. The great majority of readers, who numbered nearly 450 when I last counted, were unqualifiedly encouraging, sending in posts like “great reporting! Kudos!”, “journalism is still alive in India”, “hats off to the writer, bravo…”

Many recognised that this period of dissimulation and fake news needs to come to an end. As one reader put it, “It is time to reject all media outlets that advertise fake news and propaganda. Such news may titillate, but does not give any value to our common issues.” There were some lively discussions. Remarked one respondent to another who had attacked both the piece and the writer, “Before you start saying that she is a congress stooge, or anti-national, do recall that the same journalist had exposed the wrong doings of Vadra too in 2011.” Another, a Modi supporter, did some plainspeaking, “I was one of those hardcore Modi fans who supported Bjp but it took almost 2 years for me to understand the true colour of the party… even though i was a bhakt I refused to be a ‘andha bhakt’ and I stick to this stand ie appreciating good job and criticizing bad decisions from any party! Now coming to this incident, I am quite surprised to see all the news channels ignoring this news, no debates, no investigations, no polls, from any media houses so far! This exposes lot of our media houses as well.”

Apart from responses from readers, the social media was also alive to the implications of the story, with bloggers, vloggers and resident wits having a field day. But it was in the calling out of the shocking bias with which mainstream television channels treated the Jay Shah expose – first by ignoring The Wire story and then scrambling to cover the government’s defence mounted by Union railway minister Piyush Goyal – that the satire was at its most pungent. One neat infographic that did the rounds carried 16 familiar faces from our Hindi and English news chat shows with the words, “I am with Jay” emblazoned below each.

Going by the metrics of public support, the Jay Shah investigation has done well. This anchorage of popular opinion will prove vital in seeing The Wire through in the crucial period ahead of it. Those seeking to bring it down by hurling at it Rs 100-crore defamation suits should understand that when people start asking questions, there will be no room to hide.

Apart from the many mails of salutation and financial support this portal has received in the wake of the Jay Shah investigation are some queries from readers abroad who are finding it difficult to subscribe to The Wire service because of certain stipulations. Kanwal Singh from Australia, for instance, wants to be a subscriber but does not have a PAN, which is required. The Wire should set up a mechanism for payments from readers outside India which is transparent, efficient and easy to use.

Roshan Jayakumar, a lawyer by profession, is upset with The Wire for a typo, and an embarrassing one at that. Referring to the article, ‘Questioning Periyar Is Necessary for Forging a Progressive Anti-Caste Politics’ (October 6), he writes: “Tamil Nadu is spelt Tamil Badu at one place. Please note that ‘badu’ is an extremely vulgar word in Tamil. Please check that and correct it to avoid the wrath of people who speak Tamil.” He also believes that there is a breach of ethics in stating a certain position in the headline and then terming the piece a “political debate”. He ends by advising The Wire to do three things: ‘Proof read your articles. Spell check your articles. Take this as constructive criticism from a reader and a possible donor.’ I was particularly struck by the wisdom of the third injunction!

I will be travelling for the next six weeks. The column will be back on December 2.

Write to publiceditor@cms.thewire.in

International Federation of Journalists Expresses Concern Over Defamation Case Against The Wire

“The IFJ is concerned over the misuse of the criminal defamation to harass journalists and media to stop them for investigating matters of public interest and publication of critical stories.”

Amit Shah and son Jay Shah. Credit: PTI

New Delhi: The International Federation of Journalists (IFJ), a group of journalists from across the world that promotes press freedom, has expressed concern over the criminal defamation case filed by Jay Amitbhai Shah, BJP president Amit Shah’s son, against The Wire. The case was filed after The Wire published an investigative report detailing the sudden rise in the turnover of a company owned by Jay after the Narendra Modi government came to power.

The organisation’s statement is reproduced in full below.

The International Federation of Journalists (IFJ) is concerned over the filing of a criminal defamation case against seven persons including the reporter and editors of online news portal The Wire, on October 9.

Businessman Jay Shah filed a criminal defamation case in Ahmedabad, Gujarat, against reporter Rohini Singh and Siddharth Varadarajan, Sidharth Bhatia and MK Venu, editors of the news portal for the report ‘The Golden Touch of Jay Amit Shah’ highlighting a dramatic increase in some of his businesses since Narendra Modi became prime minister. The story based on annual filings of Shah’s companies with the Registrar of the Companies, was published by The Wire, a not-for-profit independent news website. Jay Shah is a son of the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) president Amit Shah.

A statement issued by Shah stated: “Since the website has proceeded in making an absolutely false imputation in a highly slanted article thereby damaging my reputation I have decided to prosecute Author, Editor/(s) and the Owner/(s) of the aforesaid news website for criminal defamation and sue them for an amount of Rs. 100 crores… If anyone else republish/re-broadcast the imputations made in the said article, whether directly or indirectly, such person or entity will also be guilty of the very same criminal and/or civil liability.”

Also read: Jay Amit Shah’s Case Against The Wire Is an Attempt to Censor, Intimidate Media at Large

The IFJ notes that The Wire sent queries to Shah for clarifications before publication of the story and his lawyer warned against publication of story and threatened legal consequences, including to anyone who shared the story. The story had about 136,000 shares in about a few hours of it going live.

On a different case of criminal defamation, a court stayed defamation proceedings initiated against The Wire by Essel Group for an article after the business group owned by MP Subhash Chandra withdrew the complaint. The Wire had maintained that matters of record in the public domain carried in public interest cannot amount to defamation.

The IFJ said: “The IFJ is concerned over the misuse of the criminal defamation to harass journalists and media to stop them for investigating matters of public interest and publication of critical stories. While the IFJ is confident that the court will ensure justice, the trend of filing criminal defamation cases for critical news is a matter of concern as it puts financial and psychological burden on media and journalists; and can create a chilling effect. The IFJ also calls for decriminalization of defamation by making defamation only civil offence.”

If There Is Evidence, Jay Shah’s Businesses Should Be Investigated: RSS Leader Dattatreya Hosabale

Statement suggests the BJP and its ideological mentor may not be on the same page on how to tackle the issue.

File photo of Prime Minister Narendra Modi and RSS leader Dattatreya Hosabale. Credit: PTI

New Delhi: The Modi government’s response to The Wire story on the dramatic growth in some of the businesses of BJP party president Amit Shah’s son may have been to circle the wagons and rush to his defence but the RSS on Thursday struck a different note, saying Jay Amitbhai Shah should be investigated if the accusations levelled against him are serious and there is evidence in hand.

Speaking to reporters during the RSS’s ‘national consultation meeting’ in Bhopal, the Sangh’s joint secretary Dattatreya Hosabale said that an investigation should be initiated if there is any prima facie evidence against Jay Shah.

“If there are corruption allegations against anyone, they should be investigated. But there has to be prima facie evidence of wrongdoing,” he said to a question from a journalist, according to NDTV.

According to other media reports, Hosabale, while replying to a query on whether he thought there was a case against Shah, said, “It is for those who have made the accusation to prove the charge”.

Aaj Tak quoted the RSS leader as saying, “Kisi par bhi jo brashtachar ke aarop hote hain, uspe jo aavashyak jaanch hain, woh ho. Iss hisab se jo karwai hoti hai, woh ho (If there are corruption allegations against anyone, the probe that is required must take place. Whatever action is decided on that basis should be taken).”

Hosabale’s words indicate that the RSS’s position on the matter is slightly at variance with the BJP’s, whose leaders had dismissed The Wire’s story as “baseless” and “defamatory”. Several senior leaders – including Union minister Piyush Goyal in a press conference – have taken turns to defend the national party president’s son. Jay has also filed a criminal defamation case against The Wire, though both his father and Modi have maintained silence on the issue.

Hosabale’s statements come at a time when opposition parties, especially the Congress, have tried to corner the BJP on the issue. The RSS, which has always advocated strict action against corruption, appears to be a responding to the strident opposition allegations.

Since the BJP has not come up with any factual rejoinder to the report, party insiders told The Wire that the Sangh parivar has been trying to devise a possible strategy to minimise the negative electoral impact the BJP may have to suffer.

That the Sangh parivar has been grappling with a number of issues that do not bode well for the BJP in the upcoming Gujarat and Himachal Pradesh assembly elections was reflected recently in RSS sarsanghchalak Mohan Bhagwat’s Vijayadashami speech. Bhagwat had targeted the Modi government for putting small and medium businessmen – also considered the RSS’s core support group – in a tight spot by hastily implementing the Goods and Services Tax.