The Solomon James writ 383 first appeared before the Supreme Court on September 9, 2011. Following initial hearings, the court established the Lahoti Committee on November 14, 2011. This committee, led by former Chief Justice R.C. Lahoti, was tasked with exploring an amicable settlement between Speak Asia and its panelists.
Uncertainty has surrounded the writ's beneficiaries. Only 115 panelists are officially signed on the James writ, raising questions about whether it covers just these individuals or Speak Asia's entire 1.2 million panelists. Justice Lahoti, overseeing the mediation, clarified that the committee's proceedings are specifically for "the panelists who have filed the case."
This distinction prompted further inquiry into the writ's actual reach. While the mediation focuses on the 115 petitioners, the writ itself holds the potential to represent all 1.2 million Speak Asia members. The specifics of this petition, despite its broad implications, remained largely undisclosed until now.
The petition names 115 petitioners, with Mr. Solomon James acting as their authorized signatory. The initial respondents include the Union of India through the Ministry of Finance, the Reserve Bank of India, Speak Asia Online Pte. Ltd., and Haren Ventures Pte. Ltd. The Supreme Court later added the Central Board of Direct Taxes as Respondent No. 5 and the Economic Offenses Wing of Mumbai Police as Respondent No. 6.
The petition's prayer specifically requests a Writ of Mandamus. This writ would direct Respondent No. 3, Speak Asia, to disburse payments due to the petitioners and "other panelists" for earned reward points. It also seeks a direction for Respondent No. 4, Haren Ventures, to refund subscription amounts to the petitioners and "other subscribers" for periods when the e-magazine was not provided.
Haren Ventures, one of CEO Harender Kaur's private companies, handled Speak Asia's membership fees, not Speak Asia directly. This arrangement is part of the petition's claims. The writ petition, therefore, explicitly seeks remedies not only for the 115 signed panelists but also for a broader group identified as "other panelists" and "other subscribers."