SLAPPocalypse Now: When Corporate Fragility Meets the DPDP Act — A Sarcastic Missive to Ajay Piramal (Featuring A Case Against OBMA)
SLAPPocalypse Now: When Corporate Fragility Meets the DPDP Act — A Sarcastic Missive to Ajay Piramal (Featuring A Case Against OBMA)
Posted on 19th November, 2025 (GMT 08:55 hrs)
Painting Courtesy: Leonora Carrington
ABSTRACT
This satirical legal draft lampoons the alleged use of SLAPP suits by Ajay Piramal’s legal team, mocking their attempts to file defamation and DPDP-based complaints against the author and OBMA despite the obvious legal incoherence of such actions. Through exaggerated legal language, ironic self-deprecation, and political commentary, it portrays the Respondents as targets of authoritarian overreach while highlighting how the DPDP Act is being misapplied to suppress dissent. The document parodies courtroom procedure, inflates accusations to absurd extremes, and ultimately undercuts its own premise by noting that the DPDP Act cannot even be used for defamation—exposing the strategic misuse of lawfare against activists and critics.
Subject: A Friendly Offering of Draft Legal Work for Your Esteemed Legal Team
Dear Mr. Piramal (CBE),
We are fully aware of how diligently your esteemed legal representatives at DSK Legal have been working to prepare “Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation” or SLAPPs against me and certain other DHFL victims, alongside social media platforms known as LinkedIn, Twitter (now “X”), and Facebook.
Funnily enough, your legal team has taken the creative liberty of drafting a defamation suit against me on behalf of a now non-existent company called “PCHFL”—an imaginative choice, though one wonders about its legal tenability. More strikingly, our OBMA platform activists have been delightfully entertained to see “Cancelled” stamps adorning one such defamation suit, painstakingly assembled through the tireless efforts of DSK Legal.
In the spirit of generosity, I am now presenting a draft legal document below, framed during a period when I was simultaneously consuming Saridon and popping Nixit to manage my headaches and addiction at the same time, disinfecting my home/workplace with Tri-Activ, and preparing to rinse with Quik Kool to treat mouth ulcers brought on by stress-induced smoking, following the DHFL resolution debacle that led to me to my present expropriated, dispossessed, disenfranchised state.
It is my humble hope that your legal team will find this draft extremely useful, perhaps reducing their labour while continuing their valiant crusade against OBMA and our sustained democratic, structurally-targetted dissent. Previous letters in this very thread were also composed to minimize DSK Legal’s research efforts, allowing them to continue filing one complaint after another with maximum efficiency and minimal mental exertion.
Surely, such selfless assistance to your legal machinery warrants some token of appreciation from your CSR Foundation for me and my fellow OBMA activists?
“হুকুম হল— নেড়ার তিনমাস জেল আর সাতদিনের ফাঁসি!”
“The order was passed — three months’ imprisonment, and seven days’ capital punishment!”
With warm regards (and a generous dash of sarcasm),
लड़ेंगे या मरेंगे!
इंक़लाब ज़िंदाबाद!
No Pasaran!
Your Most Obedient Servant,
Debeprasad (sic) Sadhan (patriarchal insertion?!) Bandopadhyay (sic)
“না বাঁচাবে আমায় যদি মারবে কেন তবে? কিসের তরে এই আয়োজন এমন কলরবে?”
When SLAPP Meets the DPDP Act: (Perhaps) A Legal Draft
IN THE HON’BLE COURT OF STRATEGIC LAWSUITS AGAINST PUBLIC PARTICIPATION (SLAPP)
Case No.: 2025/DPDP/001
Ajay Piramal
Petitioner
versus.
Debeprasad Sadhan Bandopadhyay and Once in a Blue Moon Academia (OBMA)
Respondents
COMPLAINT UNDER THE DIGITAL PERSONAL DATA PROTECTION (DPDP) ACT, 2023
I. Parties
- Petitioner: Ajay Piramal, an individual of CBE prominence, residing at 601, 6th Floor, Amiti Building, Agastya Corporate Park, Kamani Junction, Opp. Fire Station, LBS Marg, Kurla
Mumbai MH 400070, who asserts that his personal data has been misused in publications by the Respondents. - Respondents:
- Debeprasad Sadhan Bandopadhyay, an Urban Naxal, Member of Tukde Tukde Gang, Anti-National belonging to the pen front (peculiarly enough, he knows Sanskrit texts) engaged in publication, activism and academia. He is listed as being “dangerous to Indian unity and sovereignty” under clause 2(a)(iii) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (as amended), for his seditious writings and anti-Hindutva propaganda that threaten the territorial integrity of the Indian crony oligarchical nation-statist imagi-NATION.
- Once in a Blue Moon Academia, a platform involved in changemaking praxis.
II. Jurisdiction
- This Hon’ble Court has jurisdiction under the Digital Personal Data Protection Act (DPDPA), which governs the processing, security, and handling of personal data by Data Fiduciaries in India.
III. Facts
- Since February 2021 till present, the Respondents published material containing the Petitioner’s personal data, including his name, professional affiliations, and biographical information.
- The Petitioner alleges that the publication contains statements that harmed his reputation and falsely represented certain facts about him, e.g., calling him “crony” and “cunning capitalist” working in collusion with the BJP, “insider trader”, “environmental extortionist”, “adverse possessor”, “compulsive stay order seeker”, “paramavaisnava philanthro-capitalist”, “pharma-capitalist” and so on.
- The Petitioner asserts that the Respondents, in publishing this material, acted as Data Fiduciaries and failed to uphold their obligations under the DPDP Act, including: a) Maintaining reasonable safeguards to prevent personal data breach. b) Ensuring completeness and accuracy of personal data when it is likely to be used to make a decision affecting the Data Principal or disclosed to another Data Fiduciary. c) Providing notice to the Data Principal and obtaining verifiable consent before processing personal data (except in cases of legitimate uses).
IV. Legal Claims
- Petitioner claims that the Respondents’ actions constitute a violation of the DPDP Act, 2023, specifically: a) Section 8(5): Failure to implement reasonable security safeguards to prevent personal data breach. b) Section 8(3): Failure to ensure completeness, accuracy and consistency of personal data in circumstances where it is likely to be used to make a decision affecting the Data Principal or disclosed to another Data Fiduciary. c) Section 5(1) read with Section 6: Failure to provide itemized notice and obtain verifiable consent (or rely on deemed consent under Section 7) before processing the Petitioner’s personal data. d) Section 4: Processing personal data without a lawful purpose and in violation of the general obligations of a Data Fiduciary.
- Petitioner requests the Hon’ble Court to:
a) Direct the Respondents to remove all allegedly defamatory material.
b) Impose penalties up to ₹250 crore for alleged violation of the DPDP Act.
c) Issue a public apology and corrective notice to the public, much like Gyanesh Kumar asked Rahul Gandhi to do so after the latter’s Vote Chori allegations. Furthermore, Debeprasad Sadhan Bandopadhyay should be arrested and jailed for an indefinite time period, if the circumstances arise, without any reasonable trial or bail, just like Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam or Sonam Wangchuk.
V. Grounds for Relief
- The Petitioner contends that:
a) The Respondents processed personal data without verifiable consent or legitimate use under Section 7. b) The publication caused processing-related harm by inaccurate or incomplete portrayal of personal data. c) Monetary penalties and corrective directions are warranted under Sections 27 and 33 read with the Schedule to the DPDP Act.
VI. Prayer
- In view of the above, the Petitioner prays that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to:
a) Direct the Respondents to remove the allegedly harmful material.
b) Impose the maximum penalty allowable under the DPDP Act for non-compliance.
c) Award any further relief deemed just and proper.
VII. Important Legal Note (For Instructional Purposes)
- It is noted that the DPDP Act, 2023 does not provide remedies for defamation or reputational harm. Civil or criminal remedies for defamation are available under:
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (Sections 356–357 corresponding to erstwhile IPC 499–502) for criminal defamation.
- Civil Law of Torts for damages and injunctions.
- Therefore, while this complaint is drafted as a DPDP Act claim, it is legally invalid and would likely be dismissed by the Court for lack of applicability.
Dated: 01/01/66,000,000 BC
Place: Planet Earth without nation-statist boundaries, where NRC-CAA-NPR-SIR do not apply
COPY TO:
1. The Hon’ble Prime Minister, Government of India
2. The Hon’ble Home Minister, Government of India
3. The Hon’ble Sarsanghchalak, Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS)
4. Shri A.H. Laddhad, The Hon’ble Prothonotary and Senior Master, Bombay High Court (With reference to Case No. S/42/2025)
5. The DSK Legal Team
Comments
Post a Comment