Aayush Tiwari –

Examining Sandeep Maheshwari’s Legal Blunders: The Violation of Natural Justice and Innuendo Defamation (Section 499 IPC).

In the world of entrepreneurship and motivational speaking, Sandeep Maheshwari has commanded immense respect and admiration. However, there have been instances where even great minds have faltered, Vivek Bindra, Carry Minarti and many such controversies included. In this blog, we will delve into two critical legal mistakes made by Sandeep Maheshwari in his mortal combat with the owner of the BADA BUSINESS, Dr Vivek Bindra # that had far-reaching consequences.

stopvivekbindra

The first and foremost is Overlooking one of the fundamental legal aspects called the NATURAL JUSTICE. Natural Justice stands on two pillars ‘audi alteram partem’ and nemo judex in causa sua”. Not only a celebrity but this two principles a leyman, public personality should prioritize.

Audi alteram partem, a Latin phrase meaning “hear the other side,” is a fundamental principle of natural justice and a cornerstone of the legal system. It ensures that all parties involved in a dispute or legal proceedings have the right to be heard and present their case before a fair and impartial decision is made. This principle emphasizes the importance of giving each party an opportunity to express their views, present evidence, and refute any allegations made against them. By adhering to audi alteram partem, the legal system aims to promote fairness, transparency, and the protection of individual rights.

Unfortunately, Sandeep Maheshwari had violated the first principle audi alteram partem by not allowing Dr Vivek Bindra to have a one on one conversation based on the allegations on him despite his continuous requests( challenge as well).

The other principle of natural justice is nemo judex in causa sua. Which means no body can be a judge in his own cause. Making videos after videos on this controversy, Sandeep Maheshwari has cited his legal opinions based on the Vivek Bindra Scam (IBC SCAM #stopvivekbindra ) in front of his audience. When discussing about issues involving legal complexities against Dr Bindra, the law students, lawyers and such specialists needed to be summoned rather than only his young fans.

This is the gross violation of “Nemo judex in causa sua”, a Latin phrase meaning “no one can be a judge in their own case,” is a key principle of natural justice and a fundamental aspect of upholding fairness and impartiality in the legal system. It prevents any person or entity from being a judge when they have a personal interest or bias in the outcome of the case. This principle recognizes that an impartial decision can only be reached when the judge or decision-maker is free from any conflicts of interest, ensuring that justice is not only done but also seen to be done. Nemo judex in causa sua safeguards the integrity of the legal process, maintains public trust, and guarantees that all parties are treated fairly and equitably.

A deep regards to someone’s privacy and respecting the confidentiality of others is a legal and ethical responsibility impossible without abiding by thr natural justice.

Unfortunately, Sandeep Maheshwari made a grave mistake by unknowingly violating these legal principles of jurisprudence .

So to repeating again this Natural justice, also known as procedural fairness, is a fundamental principle that underpins judicial and administrative decision-making processes. It ensures that all individuals are treated fairly and impartially, regardless of the circumstances. Natural justice encompasses two fundamental principles: the right to be heard and the right to a fair and unbiased decision-maker. The right to be heard means that all parties involved in a dispute or legal proceeding have the opportunity to present their case and provide evidence in support of their position. The right to a fair and unbiased decision-maker requires that the person or entity making the decision is independent, neutral, and free from any conflicts of interest. By upholding the principles of natural justice, the legal system fosters trust, transparency, and accountability, ultimately leading to just outcomes and the protection of individual rights.

In his pursuit of sharing life stories and inspiring narratives, and reveal the ‘Spiritual scam” of Vivek Bindra the personal information of individual was revealed without their consent, causing significant damage and legal repercussions.

A follow up on this feature, the other section will shed light on the consequences that can be faced by Sandeep Maheshwari due to the violation of thr other procedural law : IPC, section 499, 500. It will discuss the potential legal ramifications and the impact on his credibility, emphasizing the importance of upholding privacy rights of individuals in the digital age.

While Sandeep Maheshwari has undoubtedly made significant contributions to the field of motivation, helping youngsters come out of depression and entrepreneurship, it is essential to acknowledge the legal mistakes committed. By exploring these two critical errors – overlooking the natural justice and section 499 IPC, surrogate defamation called the “innuendo”.

Innuendo means an indirect hint. It is derived from the Latin word “innuere,” which means “to nod forward.” Innuendo is used in lawsuits for defamation (libel and slander). It shows that the plaintiff had bad statements made about them and that the statements were in fact defamatory

We can gain valuable insights to avoid similar legal pitfalls in our own lives. Learning from the experiences of others is crucial as we strive to navigate the legal landscape in the digital era with integrity and diligence.