Mangaluru: Days after the Mumbai Press Club suspended three senior members for six years for inviting human rights defenders and academics linked to the Elgar Parishad case to the club, the National Investigating Agency (NIA) has entered the controversy. In an email sent out to the members of the club, it was stated that the central agency visited the premises on Wednesday (April 29) and conducted an “inquiry”.The accusations against the three suspended senior journalists stem from an informal meeting held at the Mumbai Press Club on January 19, attended by several defendants in the Elgar Parishad case. Bernard D’Mello, a senior journalist and editor, had facilitated the visitors’ entry.In a statement issued after the suspensions, the club’s Managing Committee said the expulsion of Gurbir Singh, D’Mello and Shrikant Modak was necessary because their conduct had “brought the institution into disrepute and exposed it to legal risk”.The Mumbai Press Club, long regarded for its liberal credentials, has traditionally served as an open space for discussion and interaction. According to the suspended members, a person’s involvement in a legal case has never been a criterion for denying access to the premises and several guests, including political leaders with pending criminal cases, regularly visit the club.The controversy has now taken a more dangerous turn with the state agency also getting involved in the matter. According to the club, the NIA conducted an “inquiry” with its office bearers and has sought certain documents pertaining to the said incident. “The Mumbai Press Club is fully cooperating with the agency and has extended all necessary assistance in accordance with applicable laws and procedures,” the club stated in its email.Also read: Mumbai Press Club Bars Elgar Parishad Defendants’ Entry, Issues Show-Cause Notice to MemberThe Wire had sent a questionnaire to the Mumbai Press Club and along with several other details, had also sought a response on how the NIA got involved in the matter. In response, the secretary of the club Mayuresh Ganpataye said that “the inquiry was initiated independently by the NIA”.Ganpataye is also one of the members of the Inquiry Committee which suspended the three senior members from the club.In the show cause notice that he had issued to the three suspended members, he wrote:“It is alleged that you facilitated the entry and presence of such persons within the Club premises without due regard to the potential reputational consequences for the institution. The reported circumstances suggest that the assembly may have had the effect, or at least the perceived effect, of associating the Club with individuals facing serious criminal allegations, thereby exposing the Club to adverse publicity and risking the impression that its premises are being used in a manner inconsistent with its stated objectives and standing.”In a statement issued after the expulsion, the club committee has stated that “some attendees (accused in the Elgar Parishad case) were subject to bail conditions imposed by the Supreme Court and the NIA Court, including restrictions on interaction with co-accused”. The inquiry, they claim, arose in an “already sensitive context”. “Prior to the incident”, the statement claims, “sections of social media had labelled the Mumbai Press Club a “Naxalite Hub”.Although the club has claimed that the NIA got involved on its own accord, it can not be ignored that it is only after the club made an issue out of the visits of the Elgar Parishad case accused to its premises that the matter was highlighted in the media and was eventually brought to the NIA’s notice.It is also important to note that in its correspondence with one of the suspended members, Modak, the Inquiry Committee has claimed that it was “authorised to seek independent legal advice, including on whether, as a matter of good governance and compliance, the matter warrants reporting to any competent authority”. To this, Singh claims that the committee was most certain to report the matter to the NIA even if it has not got involved in the issue on its own.Also read: Leaked Data Shows Surveillance Net in Elgar Parishad Case May Have Crossed a LineSingh, in his detailed response to the Inquiry Committee, focuses on both the factual aspects of the allegations levelled against him and two others and also on the serious repercussions such an action has on a space created for open dialogue and freedom of expression. Singh has claimed that he was not the one who invited the accused in the Elgar Parishad to the club. They were invited by D’Mello, a fact that D’Mello and at least two persons accused in the Elgar Parishad have confirmed in their email correspondences with the club.All three suspended members had sought documentary evidence before appearing before the Inquiry Committee. The evidence, they claim, was not made available to them, not even till date. In the many email exchanges and their responses to the Inquiry Committee, the suspended journalists claim that the committee went out of its way to suppress the information.In his response, Singh points to an incident that took place on the club’s premises last year. During a documentary film screening by senior journalist Paranjoy Guha Thakurta, the club’s president Samar Khadas allegedly got into an altercation with a TV journalist. Following this incident, Singh, like many other members of the club, had demanded that the press club president apologise to the video journalist. Some members had also called for a Special General Body meeting. This incident, Singh claims, was the start of the infighting between several members of the club.“A SGBM was to be held within one month, as per the byelaws. It was organised and then suspended after the club’s committee members staged a commotion. The SGBM has not been held till date,” Singh told The Wire and also claimed in his long response to the Inquiry Committee.Singh has alleged that his deposition before the Inquiry Committee was incomplete, while D’mello has accused the Inquiry Committee of tampering with the transcripts of his testimony and Modak had sought detailed documents and evidence before he could appear before the committee, which was not provided to him.At least two office bearers of the club have raised objections and opposed the way in which matters have been handled by the committee.The ongoing infights between some office bearers and members of the club has a serious bearing on not only the defendants in the Elgar Parishad case but also how the club chooses to run the space that has for long hosted talks, irrespective of the cases pending against speakers.