A division bench of the Bombay High Court on September 23 asked petitioner Vijay Namdeo Rokade and others to explain how their 2011 Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking a ban on Sanatan Sanstha was maintainable. The court made it clear that the plea would either have to be withdrawn or face dismissal. Following the observation, the petitioners counsel withdrew the PIL.
The PIL had demanded that Sanatan Sanstha be declared a terrorist organisation under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), claiming its members engaged in “hypnotism and terror activities.” Earlier, the court had directed both the Union of India and the Sanstha to file their responses to the petition.
In 2017, the Union of India informed the court that the material submitted by the Maharashtra Government was insufficient to conclude that Sanatan Sanstha’s activities met the threshold of a terrorist organisation under UAPA. This weakened the foundation of the petition, which had lingered in court for over a decade.
Responding strongly, Sanatan Sanstha filed an affidavit through its Goa-based managing trustee, Virendra Marathe. The organisation termed the allegations as “the flight of imagination of the petitioners” and demanded exemplary costs against them. On terror allegations, the affidavit stated: “There is absolutely not a single criminal proceeding that is pending against Sanstha.”
Addressing allegations regarding the 2008-09 blasts in Thane, Vashi, and Panvel targeting theatrical shows, the Sanstha clarified that its inquiries showed the organisation’s name did not appear “even as a whisper” in the chargesheets or judgements. Of the six accused, four were acquitted and the two convicted were not found guilty under UAPA terror charges.
On the 2009 Margao blast in Goa, where two alleged Sanstha sadhaks were killed while handling explosives intended for the Narakasur effigy festival, the affidavit underlined that the organisation itself was not named as an accused.
The Sanatan Sanstha categorically denied all charges of raising a parallel army or engaging in anti-social activities. The affidavit stressed that attempts to link the organisation with terror cases were “misconceived and malicious.”
Comments