Sikhs For Justice Inc. "SFJ" v. Facebook Inc.

Filing 1

COMPLAINT For Injunctive Relief and Damages against Facebook Inc.. Filed by Sikhs For Justice Inc. "SFJ". ( Filing fee $400., receipt number 0971-9566469 ) (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 Exhibit Email correspondence with defendant Facebook Inc)(Pourtavoosi, Babak) (Filed on 6/2/2015) Modified text on 6/2/2015 (dhmS, COURT STAFF).

Babak Pourtavoosi, Esq
CASBN: 216287
Of counsel to Pannun The Firm, PC
75-20 Astoria Boulevard, Suite 170
Jackson Heights, NY 11370
T: 718- 672-8000 F:718-672-4729
Email: babakpacer@ gmail.com
Attorney for Plaintiff

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
____________________________________
Sikhs For Justice "SFJ", INC.,
)
) Civ. No.
Plaintiff,
)
) COMPLAINT FOR
) INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND
) DAMAGES
)
v.
)
)
Facebook, Inc.,
)
)
Defendant.
) DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
)
______________________________________)
Plaintiff, by and through its attorney, alleges the following:
COMPLAINT
This complaint asks the court to issue a Judgment for all harms suffered by
Plaintiff based on the acts, errors, omissions, and misconduct of the Facebook Inc,
the Defendant, to wit: blocking access to Plaintiff’s Facebook Page
(www.Facebook.com/sikhsforjusticepage), posts, and all content on Defendant’s
Civil Complaint
SFJ v. Facebook Inc.

Page 1 of 15

web based platform or service throughout the country of India based on the
plaintiff's constitutionally protected political and human rights related activities,
whether on behest of the Government of India or on its own; including but not
limited to:
- running a campaign on Facebook against increasing human rights
violations against religious minorities of India since election of Indian Prime
Minister Narendra Modi in May 2014 specifically forced conversions of Christians
and Muslims to Hinduism through the "Homecoming" scheme;
- running a campaign on Facebook exposing PM Modi's involvement in
massacre of Muslims in the Indian State of Gujarat during 2002 which caused a
ban, from 2005 till 2014, on Modi's entry to the United States under International
Religious Freedom Act of 1998;
- running a campaign on Facebook advocating "right to self determination"
as guaranteed by UN Charter and International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights, for the Sikh people of the Indian state of Punjab;
- launching and a campaign demanding that India should hold an
independence referendum in the state of Punjab under UN Charter;
- campaigning on Facebook about Article 25 of the Constitution on India
which labels "Sikhs" as "Hindus" and undermines the separate and status of
Sikhism as district religious identity of the Sikh community.
Civil Complaint
SFJ v. Facebook Inc.

Page 2 of 15

The above and other campaigns run and launched by the plaintiff through its
Facebook Page aimed at exposing India with regard to the plight of religious
minorities and denial of Sikhs' right to self determination and demand for
independence referendum in the Indian occupied Punjab, prompted the defendant
to block access to plaintiff's Facebook page in India, on its own or on the behest of
the Government of India.

I. BACKGROUND INFORMATION

India is a country of over 1.2 billion people with Hindus as a majority while
Muslims, Christians, Sikhs, Budhists and others being vulnerable minorities.

Since the election of Narendra Modi as Prime Minister of India in May
2014, religious minorities especially Christians, Muslims and Sikhs are under
increased attacks from the Hindu supremacist groups closely aligned with the
ruling party of India. Groups like Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) believe in
and practice a fascist ideology1 and run a passionate, vicious and violent campaign
to turn India into a "Hindu" nation with a homogeneous religious and cultural

1

http://www.ibtimes.com/hindu-nationalists-historical-links-nazism-fascism-214222

Civil Complaint
SFJ v. Facebook Inc.

Page 3 of 15

identity2. While Sikhs, one of the religious minorities of India, has been stripped off
its religious identity through Article 25(b)3 of the Constitution of India4 which
labels "Sikhs" as "Hindus", Christian and Muslim communities are being targeted
by BJP and RSS with new zeal ever since Modi became Prime Minister, to
accomplish its agenda of turning India into a "Hindu" nation. On August 11, 2014
RSS Chief Mohan Bhagwat unequivocally announced his party's agenda by stating
that, "The entire world recognizes Indians as Hindus therefore India is a Hindu
state5". In December 2014, RSS launched a nation-wide campaign called "The
Home Coming" to forcibly convert Christians and Muslims to Hindus6 resulting
into engulfing of thousands of members of religious minorities into "Hindu fold".

Sikhism is the 5th largest religion with 28 million followers throughout the
world. Sikhs in India comprise 1.8 % of the total population with majority living in
the Indian occupied Punjab. Founded in 15th Century by Sri Guru Nanak Dev Ji,
Sikhism is a separate religion, with its own distinct set of faith and principles,
religious book (Sri Guru Granth Sahib), rituals and practices. It is undisputed
2

"RSS to press ahead on conversions" http://in.reuters.com/article/2014/12/21/india-politics-religionidINKBN0JZ07D20141221
3
http://www.tribuneindia.com/news/punjab/after-3-decades-sikh-demand-for-separate-status-gains-forceagain/19096.html
4
Explanation II to Article 25(b) of the Constitution of India 1949 provides that "...reference to Hindus shall be
construed as including a reference to persons professing the Sikh....."
5
http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/citizens-of-hindustan-hindus-rss-chief-mohan-bhagwat-s-comment-sparksoutrage-574112
6
http://www.thehindu.com/sunday-anchor/conversion-confusion-forced-into-homecoming/article6711441.ece

Civil Complaint
SFJ v. Facebook Inc.

Page 4 of 15

historical fact that since its inception, Sikhism has been recognized as a separate
religion in its own standing except in post-colonial India where Article 25 of the
Indian Constitution labels "Sikhs" as "Hindus".
Since 1984, Sikh community living in Punjab and elsewhere has become
more vocal in demanding their right to self determination and seeking for the
creation of sovereign country in the State of Punjab. In retaliation to Sikhs' demand
for secession and sovereignty on the basis of separate religious identity, Indian
government launched a military attack on the holiest Sikh shrine The Golden
Temple in June 1984 resulting in desecration of the Sikh Vatican and death of
thousands of pilgrims. In November 1984, after assassination of PM Indira Gandhi
by her two Sikh bodyguards, another organized genocide of Sikhs was carried out
throughout India resulting in death of over 30,000 Sikhs and displacement of over
300,000. From 1984 to 1998 over 100,000 Sikhs were extra judicially and
summarily killed by the security forces in the state of Punjab to curb the Sikh
movement for independence.

Now, Sikhs' movement and demand for independence referendum is gaining
momentum and popularity among Sikhs living in Punjab and across the world,
attempts are being made to muzzle the voice of Sikhs through acts such as
blocking the Facebook page.
Civil Complaint
SFJ v. Facebook Inc.

Page 5 of 15

II. PARTIES

Plaintiff Sikhs For Justice, Inc. (SFJ) is a registered not-for-profit
organization duly organized under the laws of the State of New York and dedicated
to the advocacy of human rights particularly rights and issues pertaining to the
plight of religious minorities of India and their treatment by the successive Indian
Governments.
SFJ believes in and adheres to Universal Declaration of Human Rights and
endeavors to create an environment in which minorities - regardless of race,
religion, language, gender, or ethnicity – can freely exercise their right to “self
determination” as enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and
United Nations Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
SFJ's mission includes "Realization of Sikhs' Right to Self Determination
and holding of Independence Referendum in the state Punjab".

Defendant Facebook, Inc. is a corporation organized and existing under the laws
of the state of Delaware with its principle place of business in Palo Alto,
California. The defendant runs a social media portal/service by the name
Facebook.

Civil Complaint
SFJ v. Facebook Inc.

Page 6 of 15

III.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

The United States District Court has subject matter jurisdiction of this action
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1331.
The United States District Court has supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28
U.S.C. 1367 over Plaintiff’s claims under Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,
as amended (42 USC Section 2000a, et seq.) and the California Unruh Civil Rights
Act (California Civil Code 51, et seq.).
Venue is proper in the Northern District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391 (b)-(c) and
1441 (a).
The Northern District of California is the venue required for disputes pursuant to
Defendant Facebook, Inc.’s Terms of Agreement.
Defendant Facebook, Inc. has been doing business in California, including the
Northern District of California. Facebook, Inc. is subject to jurisdiction in this
District. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant.
The applicable statutes of limitations have not yet lapsed in this action.

IV.

FACTS

In or around the first week of May 1, 2015, the plaintiff learnt the contents
of the Plaintiff's Facebook Page, a known human rights advocacy group advocating
for fairness, equality, and self-determination of an oppressed religious minority in
Civil Complaint
SFJ v. Facebook Inc.

Page 7 of 15

India, on the Defendant’s internet-based social media service were blocked
completely in India without notice, reason, explanation, or proper and lawful
cause.
On May 15, 2015, legal advisor for Plaintiff, Gurpatwant Singh Pannun,
Esquire, submitted correspondence to the Defendant and to the Defendant's
General Counsel requesting an immediate cease and desist of further unlawful and
improper conduct by Defendant and/or explain the reason for such conduct.
On May 29, 2015, a subsequent electronic e-mail message was sent to Defendant
by Plaintiff’s legal advisor.
Plaintiff ’s legal advisor received no responsive communication to either
correspondence or communication, except a meaningless correspondence that
simply stated that Plaintiff contact a specific number if further assistance was
required. The correspondence did not address the written concerns of Plaintiff.
Copies of the Correspondence sent by Plaintiff’s legal advisor and the
purported responses are annexed here collectively as Exhibit 1.
Attempts to contact Defendant have been futile. Plaintiff seeks an immediate
injunction against Defendant and damages for losses sustained as a result of the
loss of content on Defendant’s social media service in India.
Plaintiff has diligently attempted to contact Defendant and has been unable to in
order to address the concerns alleged in this complaint.
Civil Complaint
SFJ v. Facebook Inc.

Page 8 of 15

V. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
Plaintiff’s causes of action include the following:
AS AND FOR A FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
PERMANENT INJUNCTION
1. Plaintiff reiterates, repeats, and re-alleges all prior paragraphs as if made
with the same force and effect herein.
2. Plaintiff has a clear right to the relief requested.
3. Defendant has engaged in a practice prohibited by 42 USC Section 2000a-2.
4. Defendant has engaged in a pattern of civil rights violation and blatant
discriminatory conduct by blocking Plaintiff’s content in the entire India.
5. Plaintiff and its members have suffered irreparable harm by the deprivation
of services and blocking of content in India by Defendant.
6. Plaintiff and its members continue to suffer injuries.
7. Plaintiff lacks an adequate remedy at law.

AS AND FOR A SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
DAMAGES UNDER TITLE II OF THE U.S. CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964,
AS AMENDED

8. Plaintiff reiterates, repeats, and re-alleges all prior paragraphs as if made
with the same force and effect herein.
Civil Complaint
SFJ v. Facebook Inc.

Page 9 of 15

9. Defendant operates a place of public accommodation as a social networking
service that is internet-based but with physical headquarters and locations of
business in the State of California.
10.Defendant willfully, intentionally, purposefully, knowingly, recklessly,
and/or negligently deprived Plaintiff and its members in the entire India of
the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges,
advantages, and accommodations of Defendant’s internet-based social
networking service as a place of public accommodation, as defined in 42
USC Section 2000a.
11.That Defendant did so deprive Plaintiff and its members with discrimination
and segregation on the ground of race, religion, ancestry, and national origin.
12.That the conduct of Defendant was supported by State action in complying
with, conspiring with, or otherwise collaborating with the government of
India to deliberately block access to the Facebook page of the Plaintiff
being hosted by the Defendant’s internet-based social networking service
throughout India in retaliation to plaintiff's campaign against forced
conversion to Hinduism of the members of Christian, Muslim and Sikh
communities and other political campaigns run the by plaintiff through its
Facebook page, or for other reasons, and such action having been taken by
the defendant on its own or on the behest, urging or request of the Indian
Civil Complaint
SFJ v. Facebook Inc.

Page 10 of 15

authorities. Among other things, of Plaintiff’s Facebook page directly
advocates against "forced conversions" of religious minorities in India; for a
referendum in the state of Punjab for creation of an independent Sikh
country; and amendment to the Article 25 of the Constitution of India which
labels "Sikhs" and "Hindus". The events since the election of Narendra Modi
last year clearly show that the ruling Hindu nationalist party and its allies are
against minorities and their religious identities and in particular adheres to
the notion that "Sikhs" do not have a separate religious identity but instead
are a part of "Hindus" ; against referendum in the state of Punjab. The ruling
party of India headed by Prime Minister Modi, in collaboration with other
Hindu supremacist groups of the country, has also launched a fierce
campaign titled "Homecoming" to forcibly convert members of religious
minorities to "Hinduism". The plaintiff has been vocal through its Facebook
page hosted by the defendant's portal/service over the plight of minorities in
India.
13.That Defendant’s internet-based social networking service constitutes
“commerce” as defined in 42 USC Section 2000a.

Civil Complaint
SFJ v. Facebook Inc.

Page 11 of 15

AS AND FOR A THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
DAMAGES UNDER THE CALIFORNIA UNRUH CIVIL RIGHTS ACT
14.Plaintiff reiterates, repeats, and re-alleges all prior paragraphs as if made
with the same force and effect herein.
15.Plaintiff claims that Defendant denied it full and equal accommodations,
advantages, facilities, privileges, and services because of the race, religion,
ancestry, and national origin of its members. To establish this claim,
Plaintiff will prove all of the following:
1. That Defendant denied, aided or incited a denial of, discriminated
or made a distinction that denied the full and equal
accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, and services to
Plaintiff and its members throughout the entire India;
2. That a motivating reason for Defendant’s conduct was
its perception of Plaintiff’s members’ race, religion, ancestry, and
national origin;
3. That the race, religion, ancestry, and national origin of a person or
multiple persons whom Plaintiff was associated with as its member
base was a motivating reason for Defendant’s conduct;
4. That Plaintiff was harmed; and

Civil Complaint
SFJ v. Facebook Inc.

Page 12 of 15

5. That Defendant's conduct was a substantial factor in causing
Plaintiff’s harm.
AS AND FOR A FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
BREACH OF CONTRACT
16.Plaintiff reiterates, repeats, and re-alleges all prior paragraphs as if made
with the same force and effect herein.
17.Plaintiff and Defendant had a contract for the use of Defendant’s internetbased and physically-office-centered social networking site.
18.Plaintiff performed every part of its obligation.
19.Defendant breached the contract by blocking Plaintiff’s content.
20.Plaintiff was damaged thereby.
AS AND FOR A FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
BREACH OF IMPLIED COVENANT OF GOOD FAITH AND FAIR
DEALING
21.Plaintiff reiterates, repeats, and re-alleges all prior paragraphs as if made
with the same force and effect herein.
22.That Plaintiff and Defendant entered into a contract;
23.That Plaintiff did all, or substantially all of the significant things that the
contract required it to do in that plaintiffs did not violate the terms of
agreement and terms of "community standards" as set by the defendant;
24.That all conditions required for Defendant’s performance had occurred;
Civil Complaint
SFJ v. Facebook Inc.

Page 13 of 15

25.That Defendant unfairly interfered with Plaintiff’s right to receive the
benefits of the contract; and
26.That Plaintiff was harmed by Defendant’s conduct.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment against Defendant as follows:
a. For a permanent injunction to issue ordering Defendant to cease and
desist from blocking public access in India to Plaintiff’s Facebook
page on Defendant’s social networking service/portal i.e. "Facebook"
and further cease to engage in continuous and unlawful discriminatory
act of blocking plaintiff's Facebook page in India or anywhere else;
b. For an award of compensatory and punitive damages against
Defendant and in favor of Plaintiff for its federal and state civil rights
claims and the blatant discrimination and deprivation of content and
all discriminatory conduct committed by Defendant against Plaintiff
and its members;
c. For an order asking Defendant to produce any and all communications
and documents with the government of India, any representative,
agency, or organization acting on behalf of the Government of India,
pertaining to the plaintiff's Facebook Page or requesting/asking
Civil Complaint
SFJ v. Facebook Inc.

Page 14 of 15

Facebook Inc. to block public access to the Plaintiff’s Facebook page
in India or anywhere else;
d. For an award of statutory attorney’s fees;
e. For costs and disbursements in bringing this action;
f. For such, other, further, or different relief as this honorable Court may
deem to be just, proper, fitting, and equitable.
Dated: June 02, 2015
__/s/ Babak Pourtavoosi _________
Babak Pourtavoosi, Esq., Of counsel to
Pannun The Firm PC
75-20 Astoria Boulevard, Suite 170
Jackson Heights, NY 11370
T: 718- 672-8000 F:718-672-4729
babakpacer@ gmail.com

Civil Complaint
SFJ v. Facebook Inc.

Page 15 of 15