Bombay High Court Upholds Expulsion of Journalist from Mumbai Press Club Over Bhima-Koregaon Meeting
The Bombay High Court has dismissed an interim application filed by journalist Gurbir Singh, who was expelled from the Mumbai Press Club for six years for facilitating a meeting of persons accused in the Bhima-Koregaon case within the club premises. Justice Prafulla S. Khubalkar rejected the plea for interim stay, observing that the managing committee’s decision was neither arbitrary nor perverse, and the trial court’s refusal to grant injunction was a plausible view based on available material.
The controversy dates back to January 19, 2026, when Mr. Singh, along with two other members, organised a meeting at the club where four accused in the 2018 Bhima-Koregaon case were invited. The meeting allegedly facilitated the accused persons to gather, potentially violating their bail conditions. Following the incident, the club issued a show-cause notice on February 22, 2026. After considering Mr. Singh’s reply, the managing committee constituted a three-member enquiry committee, which submitted its report on April 25, 2026, holding Mr. Singh responsible for facilitating the gathering. The managing committee resolved to expel Mr. Singh and two others for six years effective April 27, 2026.
Mr. Singh challenged the expulsion through a civil suit and sought interim stay, which was dismissed by the trial court on July 1, 2026. Arguing for Mr. Singh, counsel submitted that the expulsion violated the club’s bye-laws under Article 11(d) and principles of natural justice, as documents demanded were not provided. However, the court noted that Mr. Singh had participated in the enquiry and was given adequate opportunity to defend himself. The court also observed that the National Investigation Agency had even filed an application for cancellation of bail based on the meeting.
Citing the Supreme Court’s judgment in T.P. Daver vs. Lodge Victoria, the court acknowledged that civil courts have limited jurisdiction in club matters and can interfere only if the body acts without jurisdiction, in bad faith, or violates natural justice. The court found none of these grounds made out. “The impugned order is not at all perverse warranting interference on any count,” Justice Khubalkar held, while clarifying that observations were made only for the interim application.
