During a defamation case against CM Atishi, the complainant’s counsel argued before Justice Vikas Mahajan that the special judge acted like a political analyst. He sought a stay on the judge’s remarks, claiming they unfairly portrayed Atishi as a whistleblower. The counsel contended that her statements were “per se” defamatory. The Delhi High Court was urged to intervene and review the observations.
New Delhi: The Delhi High Court informed by the complainant in a defamation case against Chief Minister Atishi that the special judge who dismissed the case “exercised jurisdiction beyond its power” and acted like a “political analyst.”
Praveen Shankar Kapoor’s counsel appeared before Justice Vikas Mahajan, seeking a stay on the judge’s remarks. The counsel argued that the judge improperly characterized Atishi as a “whistleblower” despite her “per se” defamatory statements.
Also Read: Delhi Court Quashes Defamation Case Against CM Atishi | Relief for AAP Ahead of Elections
Kapoor, the former media head and spokesperson for the Delhi BJP, alleged that Atishi made “baseless allegations” during a press conference on January 27 and on April 2, 2024, claiming that the BJP attempted to bribe AAP MLAs with offers ranging from Rs 20-25 crore to switch parties. Atishi had previously challenged the summons issued to her by a magisterial court.
In response to the special judge’s ruling, Kapoor’s counsel contended that the revisional court overstepped its “narrow scope” of authority.
He questioned,
“The special judge acted like a political analyst. The revisional court tried to portray the accused as a whistleblower. How can she be a whistleblower when she isn’t filing any complaint?”
He further argued that Atishi’s statements were widely disseminated in the media and that the court’s comparison between the BJP and AAP was inappropriate, stating it should have only assessed whether the statements were defamatory.
The court scheduled the next hearing for January 4.
On January 28, special judge Vishal Gogne had ruled that Atishi’s allegations were an exercise of her right to freedom of speech regarding political corruption, not defamation. The judge remarked that a powerful voice should not “scupper” a smaller one through defamation claims, asserting that the pre-summoning evidence did not sufficiently warrant summoning Atishi as an accused.
The trial court noted that Atishi’s role resembled that of a whistleblower and deemed Kapoor’s complaint as an attempt to undermine criminal investigation while suppressing freedom of speech and the right to know.
Kapoor’s plea to the high court, filed on January 30, argued that,
“The Special Judge has ventured into political adventurism akin to a political discourse by attempting to determine who is a bigger/smaller political entity, which was never within the scope of adjudication in revision proceedings.”
He asserted,
“The Ld. Special Judge did not even permit the Complainant to have a trial to substantiate his allegations. The impugned Order needs to be quashed as there are various legal infirmities in the said Order.”