S S

$ I [[x ffi smur

ATTORNEYS-AT-LAW

W]THoUT PREJUDICE
28 September 2018
To,
Bharucha & Partners
Equity Mansion
R- 1 Nehru Enclave, New Delhi

Attn: Mr. Kaushik Moitra

By Regd. A.D., Courier & Email.

Re: Response to your notice. dated 20 September 2018

Dear Sir,

Under instructions from our Client, Ms. Nupur J Sharna, Editor, Oplndia,
(hereinafter, referred to as "Our Client"), the instant Reply is being issued in response to your
Notice dated September 20, 2018 (hercinafter, "the Notice'l). This Reply is being issued
stictly without prejudice to all rights. remedies and recourses available under the law to our
Client, all ofwhich are expressly reserved.

At the outset, Our Client expressly and specifically denies each and every assertion,
allegation, statemenl, averment and/or chaBcterization made in the Notice, to the extent that
they are inconsistent with facts and the law that applies to the issue at hand. The absence, if
any, of a point-by-point rebuttal to the contents of the Notice is not to be construed as
admission ofthe same .

The Notice issued by you on behalf of your client, apart from containing allegations
which are false, fiivolous, unwaranted and untenable, is a calculated attempt on the part of
your client to stifle the exercise of free speech by our Client and to deter any criticism or
review of your client's conduct in public. including the statements issued by her on public
platfoms. Our Client is the Editor of OPlndia.com hereinafter referred to as '1he Portal"),
which is a law-abiding and responsible digital platform that cuates news and cunent affairs
content ftom various souces, apart fiom publishing articles and opinion pieces. The Portal is
krown for independent and investigative joumalism. While the Portal believes in calling out
lies and hypocrisy whe.ever they exist and regardless of who is guilty of it, it has always
done so in a responsible fashion and in keeping with the prevalent acceptable standards of
public discourse. In short, the Portal and our Client stand for exercise of their firndamental
rights to free speech and expression without fear, in public interest and without being swayed
by notions of political co.rectness. This is precisely why the Portal, under the editorship of
our Client, has eamed a wide, formidable and loyal readership among lay readers,
intellectuals, policy makers and law makers. This context is importafl irl ]ight ofyour attempt

176, First Floor, Ashoka Enclave - lII,

Sector 35, Faridabad - 121 003. National Capital Region, Delhi
Phone : +91-129-4132175, Iax : +91 129-4132175 (Extn.2l) Mobile: +91-9811063692
Email : sangeeta@simaadsan.com Website : www.simandsan.com
in the Notice to give the impression that lhe Portal indulges in misrepreserting facts and
defamatior! which our Client veheme[tly objecs to and denies unequivocally.

Coming to the contents of the Notice, a reading of it clearly reveals that none of the
allegations levelled by you against our Client satisfies the ingedients of civil or criminal
defamation or the povisions of the Indian Penal Code invoked by you. On the contrary, the
Notice shows your client in poor light as an individual who does not have the ability to take
criticism for views which she publicly holds presumably in the exercise of her right to free
speech. Perhaps, your client would do well to realise that exercise of free speech is not a one-
way street and her so-called fame does not give her a monopoly over free speech or immuniry
from criticism. Simply stated, our Client and the Portal have the right to examine your
clienfs public positions and criticis€ them as part of exercise of their free speech rights.
Importa ly, the subject of revie crilicism cannot dictale terms as to how he or she csn or
carmot be criticised because that would amount to censorship and would reflect and
authoritarian saeak. Therefore, we wish to categorically state that our Client and the author of
the reponyarticles which your client has taken offense to, have operated within the confines
of the law in publishing/authoring the repons/articles.

An objective reading ofall the reportVaricles impugned by you in rhe Notice would
reveal that the reportvanicles contain opinions on statements/facts available in public domain
which were published by your client and other individuals on social media platforms such as
Twitter. The impugned reportVanicles do not contain any imputation which, inler a/ia, could
harm or have harmed your client's reputation since they merely co ain reasonable ilferences
or conclusions which any reasonable person could have drawn or a fair comment which any
reasonable person could have made based on your client's statements and conduct oD social
media platforms and elsewhere. In fact, it is oot even your client's case that the
articles/reports are based on untrulhs. Importantly, the allegations contaircd in the Notice are
based on a truncated reading ofthe impugned reportVarticles, which makes the Notice itselfa
textbook case of playing victim. As a public figure, suely your client cannot expect the rest
ofthe world to not take note ofher statemerts and conduct, or to commenl on them.

To demoDstrate the sheer frivolity of the allegations contained in the Notice, set out
below are the responses to your client's allegations in respect of the each of the impugned
articlesteports :

The article titled 'Zack of comprehension skills or deliberute misquoting? Swara

Bhaskar plays victinl card" dated 3l January 2018, firstly, merely reports a
twiner-spat that took place between film director Vivek Agnihotri and your
Client. h the aforesaid article/report, there is not a single statement which
defamatory. Ifyour client is embarrassed by a factual repodage ofthe spat, that is
no rcason or basis lo allege defamatioa, wheD it perhaps calls for intospection on
the part of your client. The aurhor has, in facl published rhe actual conversation
ftom the social media website Twitter wirhout adding or editiag aay srarement.
T"he letrns'Iake feminist @ReollySwara' atd 'how the real vogina feels like' arc
used by Mr. Vivek Agnihotri in his twitter post during your client's twitter-spat
and ooly reported by the author. The phrase "feel like a vogina" was used by your
Client in ao article she wrote. Sumce it to state that we have lhe complete record
 of all twitter posts and other publications of your client conceming this
article/report.

Secondly, the opinion formed by the author about your client playing a victim,
was on the basis of the material published by your client and other persons
conceming this twitter-spat, which was in tum published in the article/report. It
defies logic and reason to claim defamation on this basis. In our client's editorial
judgement and opinion, the ass€rtion that your client was playing the victim card,
was indeed a fair and reasonable view to hold and express. As any reasonable
person who is entitled to dmw conclusions or form and express opinions based on
the events they witness, especially on a public platform, our Client's view in good
faith, based on your client's conduct in her spat with Mr. Vivek Agnihotri, was
that your client had intentionally distorted Mr. Vivek Agnihold's comments to
stir up a contoversy and play the victim, whereas Mr, Vivek Agnihotri was morc
measured in his approach. Suely it cannot be your client's case that the mere
expression of the view in the impugned arricle that your clielt deliberarely played
the victim amounts to defamation of your client. Coing by that logic, everyone
rrtn agrees with Mr. Agnihotri and disagrees with your client vocally is defaming
your client, and everyone who agrees with your clienr and disagre€s wi$ Mr.
Agnihorri vocally is defaming Mr. Agnihotri. ln no adult alld matue sense car
this logic be accepted because it stetches the legal concept of defamation to the
point of absurdity where no one can expr€ss his or her views on a public
conversatioD. Even assuming that your client was "righf' and Mr. Agnihotri was
"\tlong", it does not amount to defamation if a third party agrees with Mr.
Agnihotri and disagrees with your client and opines that your client was playing
victim

Thirdly, our Client is surprised that your client would find the phrax "playing
victim card' so egregious that she would wa.nt our Client's freedom ofexpression
stifled, since your client has on seveml occasions accused others of playing
victim and harbouring a victimhood complex. We are in possession of all such
social and public posts published by your client. Considering your client has
herself used this phase as a form of criticism which she deems legitimate, there
is no reason why her reputation would be ramished if our Client too deems iI to
be a form oflegitimate cdticism.

In conclusion, please note that rhis anicle/repon contains fair comments and
seeks to express, in good faith, the opinion of our Client and the author about
your client's conduct touching upon a public question and there is no imputation
which could, ,nlel'a1r',4, harm your client's reputation.

2. The article titled "Swara Bhaskzr should be the last person to accuse onyone else
of being o 'rape apologist "' dated 18 April 2018, merely reports a twitter-spat
that took place between columnisr Shefali Vaidya and your client. Neither has our
Client called your client a"rary opoloqist" nor, in any manner, has alluded that
your client's purported success is to be attributed solely to her mother's past
credentials ofbeing a member ofthe Censor Board. In the aforesaid anicle/repon,
 there is not a single statement which can be said to be defamatory. The audlor
has, in fact, published the actual conversation from the social media website
Twitter without adding or editing any statement. Our Client has faithfully
narrated your client's twitter exchanges with columnist Shefali Vaidya and after
criticising your client's conduct of'te/eclive outrage",leff. fairly a question open
to the public as to whether your client was a "rupe apologist" ot not, orl the basis
of facts. It is also a matter of fact that your clieDt commented on the Kathua rape
case when her movie was about to b€ released, on which our Client fairly
commented. inter alia, tJlatr the same could be regarded as a gimmick for
publicity. It is also a matter of fact that your client made public comments about
the movie Padmaval and defended the dangerous crime of stalking by calling it
"crazy love" with respect to the movie 'Raanjhanaa '. Since your client had
maintained silence when so many oiher heinous crimes happened, and has hardty
tweeted with the same vigour, and since the massive campaign after Kathua rape
case broke out right before her movie release, it was natural and fair for the
author to assume it was for publicity of her movie. Interestingly, this fair and
reasonable inference was also fuelled by the facr that the campaign was mainly
started by the stars ofyour client's movie Veere Di Wedding.

It is also a fact that your client publicly expressed views about lhe movie
Padmavat and how she was made to feel in a certain way after watching the
movie. The author of the anicle, on the basis of what was stated by your client,
has expressed her own opinions and views on the statements made by your Client,
in good faith and for public good, which may contradict your Client's vicws, but
are definitely not actionable for defamation.

Therefore, the author's comments only serve lo indicate or suggest your client's
public conduct. In our Client's editorial judgemenl and opinion, the anicle is only
a critic of your clienl's public positions which could be reasonably interpreted as
being selective, convenient and not necessarily well-informed. This does not
render the article defamalory.

3. The anicle titled " lf Ramazan as a Hindu holy month-how the 'liberql'media and
celebs would hoye redcted" dated l0 June 2018, is merely a satirical piece and is
in no way meanl to defame anyone. There is a blatant misinterpretation of the
image posted in the afiicle by your client, which is evidenced by the fact that
different celebrities from different fields are shown with satirical images. Our
client has not accused your client ofbeing anti-Hindu or atrti-national, and this is
merely your Client's assumption.

In view of rhe above, it is evident that your client's allegations are completely baseless,
frivolous and ludicrous and which are calculated to brcwbeat our Client in toeing her line. [t
is further evident from the above stated facts, that no case for civil or criminal defamation has
been made out in your Notice. Your Notice is nothing but a coercive measure to suppless the
opinions and fair comments of the author ofthe articles and that of our Client.
Suffice it to state 0lat our Client has never reGred to your Client as "U/ran Nqxql' or the
other epithets mentioned in the Notice. While your client has a right to think of he.self as a
liberal, she would do well to realise that her celebrity status does Dot make liberalism her
exclusive preserve nor its definition. Our Client and the Porrat believe in true liberalism,
which does trot attempt to stifle media pladorrcs for exercise of free speech.

Having mid the above, please note that should your client persist in attempting to browbeal
our ClieDt or initiale any legal action against our Client, our Client will explore and exercise
all its optio$ under the law to prcserve its constitutionally-guaranteed fieedoms as a member
ofthe Fourth Estale.

Yours sincerely,

For SM AND
at law

Mohit coel
(Pafirer)
mohit@simandsan.com