GNLU Gandhinagar director Bimal Patel emailed all faculty members today with a story of a relative walking 4km, vowing to install a statue of Lord Ganesha in his house, in order to support Patel against “the defamatory news about GNLU in Jaymin Brahmbhatt case”.
Patel sent the email as the independent inquiry ordered by the Gujarat high court into alleged cheating by student Brahmbatt remains pending, after a single-judge bench of the same high court had overturned the law school’s earlier investigation into the matter terming it malafide, unreasonable and illegal, and that Patel had turned GNLU into an oligarchy violating human rights.
We have reached out to Patel for comment to clarify which news items by which publications he had alleged in his emails to be defamatory, as well as whether there has been any outcome in the internal inquiry yet.
Full email below:
Quote of the 25th week, Thursday, 23 June 2016: Love cultivates, like a hoe in the garden of family.
Ref: 2306/16
Good morning, Dear Colleagues,
Appreciation for Office of the Registrar for enabling security providers to issue visitors’ cards.
Sharing a happiness moment: Myself
A distant family friend was very disturbed to see the defamatory news about GNLU in Jaymin Brahmbhatt case. He could not believe what was happening. He had full faith in the God, myself and GNLU as a whole and kept a mannat to install Ganeshji in his house and walk 4 km prior to the installation. When he learnt about the outcome, he was so much relieved and I could not believe his happiness. I was extremely touched by the gesture.
Thanks.
Best regards,
Bimal N. Patel
Comments
Times of India had incorrectly reported that "GNLU got relief from division bench" but one day later correctly reported the matter and apprised its readers that the inquiry was pending.
Obvious that incorrect first report was planted by Bimal & Co. in an attempt to reverse the public perception created against him.
We all enjoy the trolls and comments on the website, but this is another example of negative propaganda in the name of legal journalism. Stupid and hilarious emails are written everyday by countless people, but this is not really a story! Time to adopt some sensibility and sensitivity in your reporting!
And what exactly is wrong in us publishing this email?
Furthermore, I think it's potentially very much news-worthy that while an independent high court-ordered inquiry is going on, the director of the college is implying internally that the high court judgment and the reporting of it was somehow defamatory (despite never having objected to any coverage, as far as I know, or taken the opportunity to comment or correct any 'defamation' supposedly out there). He also somehow seems to imply that there has been an outcome in favour of the college by the HC that somehow exonerated the college (when nothing of the sort has happened yet).
Finally, to use your words, we are rather content to 'take jibes' at institutions or those in power when the occasion arises and context demands, and particularly when no other media seems to be doing so.
I've been in full support of your coverage of the Jaymin v. GNLU case. All your criticisms and comments in other articles have completely been justified.
However, I think you went a little too far here. This is a private email between Bimpa and his colleagues. He does not mention anywhere that the judgment itself was defamatory. He merely says that there was some defamatory news. He never indicated which news and by which publisher. Hence, this email is not at all relevant to what's been reported on the website so far.
So, I fail to see why the email is being published here on Legally India as an "Exclusive". Not just that, it occupies the largest tile in the Editor's Picks, which is basically the first thing you see when you log in to the website. It is also being shown in the hot news column to the right. I do not understand why you are getting so personal against him.
This is a privileged communication in which he was expressing his feelings with the staff. Granted, he might have been stupid. But, he was being stupid in private. I really fail to see how this is helping expose the administration or malpractices in the institution. There is no actus reus in the email, Kian.
This feels more like a personal attack on Bimpa. While I am usually the first in line to criticize him, it is only for the way he administrates. Getting personal by talking about "pilgrimages" by relatives in the headlines is not something I expected Legally India to do. It might not be wrong, but it is just not ethical.
I urge you to reconsider this post. Still an ardent follower btw.
1. In my opinion there simply is no such thing as a private or privileged email sent by chain email to an entire faculty body of a national law school from his official email ID with official signature of his position at GNLU and the law commission. And if the director is internally claiming that news coverage of the episode has been defamatory, then that's quite newsworthy, even if he omits to specify what EXACTLY has been defamatory. And if he is expressing his (or his relative's) opinion on the outcome of an inquiry ordered by the high court, then it is also news. While probably not outright contempt of court, it is skirting rather close to the line, and I doubt he would have made such statements publicly to media, for instance for exactly that reason.
In fact, it provides balance to our coverage since Patel has not commented once on our reports, so now it's at least in the public domain that he believes something about someone's coverage has been defamatory, which rather lessens his claim.
2. The largest editor's picks wasn't intentional - that's just a software snag that happens automatically when there hasn't been a large editor's pick box for a while, and should get superseded by the next editor's pick after that.
3. Exclusive - yes it factually is, no one else has the leaked email as far as I know... But I agree, it's not a huge news story.
4. It's a small news story which does not attack anyone - all it literally does is present the email and explain what it says, and put it into context of the remarks by the high court. And we often publish newsworthy, interesting or otherwise relevant internal emails or communications or titbits.
5. I reiterate, if the email looks bad, that's not our fault in any way.
And, ROFL, what do you mean there was no "actus reus in the email"? LI didn't suggest the email was "criminal" in any way, or there was any "criminal intent". Gosh. Take your lawyer hat off sometimes.
I think this email is great news as it shows how your "Bimpa" (ROFL) behaves. Also, once a public office-holder writes an email to the "public" (i.e. a large no. of people) its public news.
LI's reporting regarding GNLU's appeal before the Gujarat HC was more deplorable - be it the haste in reporting a dismissal of the appeal itself (later corrected), or the title for that story quoting the HC as having said 'no hurry to absolve GNLU of epitome of injustice tag' (when an urgent hearing application was dismissed without such observations).
I need not state that you are entitled to your opinion, your interpretation of everything above and also your right to make mistakes in reporting. However, there must also be a sense of responsibility in being a publisher of a significant reach - that of actually being 'neutral', sensible and sensitive in reporting.
Like I said, more than one such instance has forced me to write this; and it is only so that there can be more constructive reporting by LI. Appreciate your publishing the comments, nevertheless.
Just a few things I want to make clear - I don't think the story you mention regarding the court declining to grant urgent hearing to GNLU's letters patent appeal was in error. The headline may have oversimplified it slightly (and we clarified quickly that it was not a final dismissal of their appeal), but the story was 100% accurate from what I remember.
Furthermore, in my opinion, the fact that the 'epitome of injustice' remarks were not stricken from the record is significant: how often does a high court in a JUDGMENT say that a national law school VC is running an oligarchy that violates human rights? I don't think it's possible to understate this fact or that those comments by the high court still stand and have not been modified.
Finally, I am not sure which reports Dr Patel is implying are defamatory in his email, but if he suggests LI's reports have been defamatory, then by implication he would be calling the high court judge's comments (oligarchy etc) defamatory, since the meat of our stories on this case just quoted the judgment verbatim.
Bad days ahead, Mr. Patel.
1. Lack of hiring of teachers at NLSIU. Poor hostel amenities.
2. Controversial faculty hiring at NUJS (rubbish teachers made permanent by MP Singh and corruption by Ishwar Bhat in hiring own students), hostel problems, poor treatment of HSF by Bhat, Bhat's refusal to engage alumni and industry.
3. Harassment of Indigo air hostess by NALSAR student and his arrest (reported by MSM), MBA course sham at NALSAR, instances of people getting in NALSAR through contacts (in previous years)
4. Govt report on Jat riots said a plan was hatched to set Jindal campus on fire. Also, in today's Firstpost a shocking allegation against Jindal has been made: http://www.firstpost.com/living/bias-and-victim-blaming-colleges-sexual-harassment-cells-offer-no-solace-to-women-2855748.html
By all means pick on GNLU and attack Bimpa. But do so for other law schools as well.