Qubool Hai?

The Bombay HC observed that prima facie, it cannot be said that the allegations raised by Malik against Wankhede are totally false.

Maharashtra Minister Nawab Malik dropped a new bombshell on Sunday, continuing his tirade against Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB) zonal director Sameer Wankhede.

Backdrop

Mr Wankhede, who conducted the raid on Cordelia cruise ship off the Mumbai coast and arrested multiple individuals including superstar Shah Rukh Khan’s son Aryan Khan, now faces a serious threat to his job and reputation as a whole.

Mr Malik, after the arrests in Aryan Khan case, had taken up the responsibility to expose the alleged malpractices by the NCB and Mr Wankhede. The NCP leader had alleged that Mr Wankhede, along with other private individuals, was involved in an extortion racket using his credentials as NCB officer.

Going a step ahead, Mr Malik had also accused Mr Wankhede of lying about his religion and getting a government job by manipulating his caste. Mr Malik claimed that Mr Wankhede’s father Dnyandev Wankhede was a Muslim, and so was Sameer Wankhede. Mr Malik claimed the real name of Sameer Wankhede’s father was Dawood Wankhede.

Defamation suit against Malik

After these allegations, Mr Wankhede’s father had moved the Bombay High Court against Nawab Malik for allegedly defaming his family and sought Rs 1.25 crore in damages. The Bombay High Court was scheduled to pass an interim order in this defamation case on November 22.

We had discussed the hearing and documents presented by Mr Malik in detail in an earlier article.

Mr Malik’s latest affidavit included Mr Wankhede’s school admission documents and primary school-leaving certificate, where he has been mentioned as ‘Muslim’. He also submitted that he has verified the documents with BMC records and the schools where Sameer has studied. Malik has alleged that despite being born a Muslim, Sameer secured a central government job claiming to be from the scheduled caste.

Mr Malik had earlier released Mr Wankhede’s purported nikahnama — the document on which two Muslim partners entering into a civil union must sign to legalise their marriage — dated December 7, 2006, which shows his name as Sameer Dawood Wankhede.

Explosive picture 

On Sunday, continuing his attack on Mr Wankhede and dealing a great blow to the NCB officer’s denial of any wrongdoing, Mr Malik released a picture allegedly from Mr Wankhede’s first wedding.

In this purported picture of Mr Wankhede’s ‘Nikah’ (wedding), he’s seen signing a Nikahnama, while wearing a skull cap.

“Qubool hai, qubool hai, qubool hai.. What did you do Sameer Dawood Wankhede?” Mr Malik wrote on his Twitter, posting the alleged picture from Mr Wankhede’s Nikah.

Photograph of Sameer Dawood Wankhede signing his ‘Nikah Nama’ pic.twitter.com/lSQz56RqoW

— Nawab Malik نواب ملک नवाब मलिक (@nawabmalikncp) November 22, 2021

If authentic, this picture completely shatters Mr Wankhede’s case, in which he and his family members on multiple occasions, have denied being Muslims at any stage.

What do rules say? 

The list of officers on the website of the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT), which allots services to those who clear the Civil Services Examination (CSE), shows Wankhede was ranked 561st in CSE 2007. He was selected as a candidate from the SC category, and became an officer of the 2008 batch of the Indian Revenue Service (Customs and Indirect Taxes).

However, according to the rules, Hindu SCs who convert to Islam lose their SC status, and are no longer eligible for the quota.

A brochure on the DoPT site lays down the position on SC status and conversions:

“A person shall be held to be a member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe if he belongs to a caste, or a tribe which has been declared as such…

“No person who professes a religion different from the Hindu or the Sikh religion shall be deemed to be a member of the Scheduled Castes…”

Also, as per a DoPT circular of May 19, 1993, “wherever it is found that a Government servant, who was not qualified or eligible in terms of the recruitment rules etc… or had furnished false information or produced a false certificate in order to secure appointment, he should not be retained in service…

“If he/she has become a permanent Government Servant… if the charges are proved, the Government servant should be removed or dismissed from service.”

In the wake of new documents and picture emerging, it will be interesting to see if the Home Ministry, which enjoys a jurisdiction over the DoPT, orders an enquiry into the alleged manipulation of caste by Mr Wankhede.

No evidence against Aryan: Bombay HC

If things have gone haywire in his personal life due to these allegations, things on professional front also do not look really great for the NCB officer.

The detailed order by the Bombay HC, in which the top court granted bail to Aryan Khan and two others, was made available on November 20.

In this order, the single judge Bench of Justice Nitin Sambre has said: “The court prima facie has not noticed any positive evidence against Aryan Khan and two others.”

The Bench stated in the order: “There is hardly any positive evidence on record to convince this Court that all the accused persons with common intention agreed to commit unlawful act. There is no material evidence to connect all these three Applicants with other co-accused on the issue of conspiracy.”

The court stated, “This Court is of the opinion that the claim put forth by the Narcotic Control Bureau that the accused should be considered to have intention to commit an offence under the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, having found in possession of commercial quantity, in the backdrop of case of hatching conspiracy is liable to be rejected.”

The court also took note of the fact that the accused were not even subjected to medical examination so as to determine whether they had consumed drugs at the relevant time.

Genuine case or conspiracy?

The scathing observations by the Bombay HC raise serious question on the investigation carried out by the anti-drugs agency. This only gives more scope to speculations that there were other reasons or motivations behind the raid and arrests in the Aryan Khan case. With Bombay HC rejecting the NCB’s claim of conspiracy in the case, and Nawab Malik and other witnesses speaking of an alleged extortion demand, it is very much important that Mr Wankhede and his investigation into the case must be probed neutrally.

The NCB had also launched a vigilance probe against Mr Wankhede after a witness, Prabhakar Sali, had accused him of demanding a bribe from Shah Rukh Khan’s manager. After the HC’s remarks, it is the agency’s duty to probe Mr Wankhede’s role more strictly and transparently.

On the part of the NCB officer, there are very few ways out of this. After the recent picture posted by Nawab Malik, will Mr Wankhede continue to deny any wrongdoing? Or will he say Qubool Hai? That the allegations against him are not false? Will Mr Wankhede, after the Bombay HC’s rebuking, accept that he had no case against Aryan Khan and that there was an ulterior motive at play?

Denial, in both cases, will require Mr Wankhede to submit evidences that corroborate with his claims, with a neutral investigating agency verifying the claims and evidence. If Mr Wankhede fails to do that, he may not only lose his job, but can also be made an example of by those in politics, who do not hesitate to make friends in bureaucracy and then throw them under the bus if required. Don’t believe me? Ask Mr Param Bir Singh or Sachin Vaze.

Bombay HC Vindicates Nawab Malik

While this article was being prepared, the Bombay HC passed an interim order on Monday in the defamation suit filed by Mr Wankhede’s father against Nawab Malik.

Providing Nawab Malik with relief and some sense of vindication, the Bombay HC observed that prima facie, it cannot be said that the allegations raised by Malik against Wankhede are totally false.

The Court said that it cannot pass a blanket injunction against Malik, but added that he should exercise reasonable care to verify the allegations against Wankhede before making public statements regarding them.

The Court noted in its order that right to privacy has to be balanced with freedom of speech. Public has the right to comment about the actions of a person in official capacity. It also observed that serious allegations against Wankhede have been made by Prabhakar Sail, the panch witness in the Aryan Khan case.

.