After hearing from both sides representing Arvind Kejriwal and Gujarat University respectively, the single-judge, Justice Hasmukh Suthar, reserved the order for decision. This case against Kejriwal and Singh was filed by Gujarat University which alleged that the two politicians made “defamatory” statements against it for not disclosing the degree of Prime Minister Modi.
Ahmedabad: The Gujarat High Court, presided over by Justice Hasmukh Suthar, has concluded hearings and reserved its order on a defamation case involving Arvind Kejriwal, the Chief Minister of Delhi. The case, initiated by Gujarat University, accuses Kejriwal and his associate of making allegedly defamatory remarks concerning the university’s disclosure of Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s degree.
Senior Advocates Rebecca John and Nirupam Nanavaty represented Kejriwal and Gujarat University, respectively, presenting their arguments before the court. The university’s complaint centers on statements by Kejriwal, which it claims cast aspersions on its integrity by questioning the disclosure of the Prime Minister’s educational qualifications.
John, defending Kejriwal, argued that the statements in question were not directed at the university nor were they defamatory in nature. She emphasized,
“Statements aren’t against the University and also aren’t defamatory. It is against someone else. Statements do not state that University gave out a forged or duplicate degree. The target audience is someone else. I am not getting into right wrong moral immoral statement because this is a legal proceeding.”
She further clarified that her clients did not accuse the university of falsifying the degree, stating,
“How there has been any defamatory imputation against the university. Both my clients have not said that the university has forged the degree. The context is not the university. Nowhere have the two men said that University has forged the degree or has given a farzi degree. There was no intent to defame the university at all.”
John also pointed out that even a straightforward reading of the university’s complaint fails to substantiate the allegations necessary to support charges of defamation under Sections 499 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code.
On the other side, Nanavaty, representing Gujarat University, argued for the continuation of the trial, stating,
“I don’t say convict them right now. I just say let them face trial. Let the trial court decide if an offence is made out. But at the threshold if you want to arrest the due process of law, then you must have sterling material in your favour.”
He further elaborated on the impact of the statements on the university’s reputation, asserting,
“I have so many employees, there are affiliated colleges, there are teachers, students, alumni etc. The witnesses are amongst them. They think that by the statements made, the reputation of the University has tarnished.”
Justice Suthar, in his observations, highlighted the necessity for the alleged defamation to resonate with the general public’s perception, noting the absence of testimony from public members who believed the university’s reputation was harmed.
“As argued by the other side, you (University) haven’t examined any public member as such, who might think that your reputation has been harmed. All the witnesses share the same interest as you,”
-the Court observed.
The court is expected to deliver its verdict on February 16, potentially setting a precedent for how defamation claims involving public figures and institutions are adjudicated, especially in cases where the implications of statements made in public discourse are contested.
CASE TITLE:
Sanjay Singh vs Gujarat University
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
