A court in the United States has dismissed a defamation suit filed by the Hindu American Foundation against four rights activists and an academic for two articles published in Al Jazeera last year.
The lawsuit, filed in a Washington DC court, was dismissed by United States District Court Judge Amit P Mehta in an order dated 20 December 2022.
The Hindu American Foundation had accused Hindus for Human Rights co-founders Sunita Vishwanath and Raju Rajagopal, Indian American Muslim Council executive director Rasheed Ahmed, Federation of Indian American Christian Organizations of North America chairman John Prabhudoss, and Rutgers University professor Audrey Truschke of a conspiracy to defame the foundation.
The article, which carried quotes from the defendants, claimed that HAF was one of the five US-based organisations with “ties to Hindu supremacist and religious groups” that had been given federal COVID-19 relief funding amounting to $833,000.
The Report
An Al Jazeera report published in April last year said that the United States’ Small Business Administration (SBA), gave the funds to HAF and four other Hindu groups as part of its Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act’s Economic Injury Disaster Loan Advance (EIDLA), Disaster Assistance Loan (DAL) and Paycheck Protection Program (PPP).
Besides HAF, Vishwa Hindu Parishad America, Ekal Vidyalaya Foundation of USA, Infinity Foundation, and Sewa International had also received the funds under the programmes “aimed to provide economic relief to distressed businesses and keep their workforce employed during the COVID-19 crisis.”
The report quoted Sunita Viswanath, co-founder of Hindus for Human Rights, who expressed “concern that the US pandemic relief funds might end up furthering hate campaign against Muslims and other minorities in India.”
A follow up article quoted from a statement issued by an organisation name the Coalition to Stop Genocide in India, which said the groups that received the funds have “existential links” with the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), the “fountainhead of Hindu supremacist ideology” and “ideological parent” of Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP).
The Defamation Lawsuit
The HAF filed the instant complaint on 7 May 2021, bringing defamation and civil conspiracy claims against each defendant – Sunita Vishwanath, Raju Rajagopal, Rasheed Ahmed, John Prabhudoss, and Audrey Truschke.
According to court documents, the lawsuit alleged that defendants and their respective organisations have “substantial ties” with Hameed Naik, the author of the first Al Jazeera story. It had said that defendants’ statements “caused substantial damage to HAF’s reputation and its ability to raise funds.”
While Sunita Vishwanath, Raju Rajagopal, Rasheed Ahmed, and John Prabhudoss were quoted in the articles, Audrey Truschke was sued for tweeting the article.
“Professor Truschke, who has worked closely on a number of occasions with IAMC, HfHR, and Sadhana — all organizations controlled or operated by the other defendants — went on the republish and amplify the defamatory statements, while falsely accusing HAF of organizing violent threats against her,” the HAF had said in a statement after filing the suit.
The Order: Motion to Dismiss Granted
In a “final, appealable order” dated 20 December, Judge Mehta said the defendant’s motion to dismiss were granted. In the memorandum opinion, the court rejected the “common law civil conspiracy claim” and said that civil conspiracy is not a standalone tort and “thus fails unless the elements of the underlying tort are satisfied.”
On the subject matter jurisdiction, the court found that “HAF has sufficiently placed into controversy whether over $75,000 in donations and grant opportunities was lost due to Defendants allegedly defamatory statements.”
The defendants had sought the court to dismiss the suit “for lack of personal jurisdiction” as none of them reside in the District of Columbia. On this, the court said that plaintiff’s complaint and supporting materials are devoid of any facts establishing a “real connection” between the defendants and the district.
On the issue of conspiracy, the court said that the plaintiff’s pleading comes “nowhere close to stating a sufficient claim of civil conspiracy” and “does not satisfy this Circuit’s rigorous conspiracy jurisdiction pleading requirement.”
HAF is required to plead with particularity both the existence of a conspiracy and “overt acts within the forum taken in furtherance of the conspiracy,” Judge Mehta said, adding, HAF has done neither. “HAF does not allege a single overt act by a co-conspirator in furtherance of the conspiracy that occurred in the district and it pleads no overt act with particularity. For this reason alone, plaintiff’s conspiracy jurisdiction theory fails,” the order reads.
‘Christmas Came Early’
Reacting to the order, Truschke said in a tweet that "this is a win against the far right."
"Christmas came early, or Diwali came late! The Hindu American Foundation's SLAPP lawsuit against me and four other defendants is dismissed by Judge Mehta! I'll comment more in the coming weeks, but this is a win against the far right!" her tweet read.
The IAMC "welcomed and applauded" the verdict, and said that the court’s dismissal of "bogus lawsuit" against the organisation's executive director, Rasheed Ahmed, "upholds rule of law."
"There was never any doubt that this lawsuit from the Hindu American Foundation was nothing more than a naked attempt to silence critics of Hindutva in the United States. It is sheer hypocrisy that organizations such as the HAF pretend they have nothing to do with the RSS and the Hindu far-right ideology and yet every bit of their action is indicative of their deep involvement in this ideology and the furtherance of its goals in the US," IAMC Executive Director Rasheed Ahmed said.
'Incredibly Disappointing'
In a statement after the order, the HAF said that it was disappointed by the ruling.
“It is incredibly disappointing that though Vishwanath and Truschke among others were found to have made verifiably false statements attacking HAF, the judge dismissed our legal action on procedural grounds. We continue to believe that the defendants’ false and malicious statements about HAF constitute actionable defamation and have every reason to believe that they will continue to spread their malicious lies."HAF Executive Director Suhag Shukla
(At The Quint, we question everything. Play an active role in shaping our journalism by becoming a member today.)