Top News

Maharashtra: Making a strong comment regarding a defamation suit, the Bombay High Court termed it a ‘battle of egos’. The court remarked that the judicial system was being disrupted due to ‘this clash of egos’ between the parties involved in the litigation. On Tuesday Justice S. A single-judge bench headed by Jain ordered that the case not be heard for the next 20 years and be listed for a date after 2046.

What is the whole matter?

Let us tell you, this case was filed in 2017 by 90-year-old Tariniben and 57-year-old Soundaisaja against musician Kilkilaraj and others. The case is based on alleged incidents that came to light during the Annual General Meeting (AGM) of ‘Shyam Co-Advocacy Academy’ in 2015. The petitioners claim that due to these things they had to face mental harassment and agony and that is why they have demanded financial compensation of Rs 20 crore.

What did Justice Jain say

Justice Jain commented "This is one of those cases where the ‘adversarial system’ i.e. ego battle between the parties at the last stage of life has completely stalled the process of justice. This court is not the appropriate forum for such cases which genuinely require a solution based on moral principles. " The court had earlier suggested that the dispute could be resolved if both the parties tender an unconditional apology. However, the court also found that despite being 90 years old, the woman was adamant in pursuing the defamation claim.

Next hearing will be in 2046

The court made it clear that in this case only the privileges given to ‘super senior citizens’ should not be given constitutional status. The Justice said in his order, "I do not wish to comment on this matter as I believe that this matter should not be considered for the next 20 years and hence it will be listed for a date after 2046."

Let us tell you, earlier in another petition dated March 27, 2025, a warning was issued saying that if the petitioner’s lawyer does not appear on the next scheduled date, the case will be dismissed. In the year 2019 also, the court had given time to submit the list of witnesses and documents. However, instead of resolving the dispute, the matter dragged on for a long time.