Kersi Sethna who unsuccessfully contested the April 10, 2016 Bombay Parsi Punchayet (BPP) trusteeship election has denied the accusation that he defamed another candidate, Arnavaz Mistry. In reply to her defamation notice served on him and the Jam-e-Jamshed (JJ) weekly, Sethna’s lawyer Ashish Bhakta of ANB Legal stated "my client denies to have made any false representations against your client’s integrity or status in society.” Sethna denies sullying Mistry’s "reputation” and claims he "bears no malice against (her) for any reason whatsoever.” A former BPP trustee, Mistry lost the election by a margin of around 60 votes to sitting trustee Armaity Tirandaz.
Arnavaz Mistry (left) has accused Kersi Sethna of defaming her and her family
The JJ, in the issue of May 8, carried a half page statement by the paper’s printer and publisher Mehernosh Avari and editor Shernaaz Engineer stating: "It appears that Mistry is deeply hurt by two advertisements inserted by Sethna and published in the JJ of April 10, 2016 and April 24, 2016. Despite the fact that neither the owner/publisher nor the editor of JJ is responsible for the contents of the above advertisements, we hereby tender an apology for factual inaccuracies, if any, contained in the above advertisements. Please note that it was never our intention to cause any hurt or inconvenience to Mistry or to any member of her family/her family member’s associate/s.”
In Mistry’s defamation notice issued by Y & A Legal Advocates, S. Pathan alleged that Sethna "made several attempts to bring our client and her daughter down by raising several false allegations against them and tarnish their image in the Parsi community for obvious mala fide reasons.”
The notice termed the item in the JJ issue of April 10 to be "patently false, misleading, baseless and frivolous.” Sethna’s headline inquired "Why these double standards?” while the advertisement went on to state "the daughter of candidate Mistry, one Yasmin Sheikh, is married to a Muslim but for reasons best known to her has reportedly not changed her voter’s certificate to her married name. There should be no preferential treatment offered to any person just because they are personally known to certain current BPP trustees.” The notice further alleges "you have made these statements against the interest of our client without knowing the true and correct facts and are attempting (to) unnecessarily interfere in our client’s daughter’s personal life in the name of BPP elections.”
In the JJ issue of April 24 Sethna alleged that Mistry’s daughter "appears to be hiding her Muslim marriage” and goes on to state "if all Parsi ladies married out of the community are willing to give an affidavit of allegiance to our religion, why is it so demeaning for Sheikh to declare on oath that she still follows the Zoroastrian faith?”
Mistry’s lawyer avers "the said article is completely false and has been deliberately inserted in order to cause grave imputation to the reputation of our client and is designed in order to adversely affect (her) eminence.” The notice accused Sethna "of misleading and misguiding the Parsi community at large.” The advocates note that Mistry "fought a clean campaign, focusing on her achievements, as opposed to highlighting the shortcomings of her fellow candidates.”
Mistry sued Sethna and the weekly for five crore rupees, sought an apology and threatened to file "appropriate criminal proceedings.”