Justice Vikas Mahajan of the Delhi High Court issued a notice to Atishi after Kapoor appealed against the order passed by Special MP/MLA Judge Vishal Gogne. The special judge had criticized the BJP leader’s complaint and dismissed the summons issued earlier by an Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (ACMM).
NEW DELHI: Today (4th Feb): The Delhi High Court has asked Delhi Chief Minister (CM) Atishi to respond to a plea filed by BJP leader Praveen Shankar Kapoor. Kapoor challenged a special court’s decision that canceled the summons issued against Atishi in a defamation case.
Justice Vikas Mahajan of the Delhi High Court issued a notice to Atishi after Kapoor appealed against the order passed by Special MP/MLA Judge Vishal Gogne. The special judge had criticized the BJP leader’s complaint and dismissed the summons issued earlier by an Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (ACMM).
The special judge, while quashing the summons, said,
“A court of law cannot aid the tilting of the democratic balance between unequal political formations and against the right to freedom of speech and expressions as well as the right to vote through contrived criminal actions for defamation filed by non aggrieved persons.”
He also remarked that the BJP, being a larger political party, should show tolerance towards opposing narratives.
“The big voice cannot scupper the smaller voice using the weapon of defamation. Any foot soldier of a big enterprise like the party in question (BJP) must necessarily project broad shoulders in accepting an alternative political narrative. Such responsibility accompanies the privilege of being the ruling party,” Judge Gogne said.
Background:
The case relates to statements made by Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leaders, alleging that BJP leaders tried to bribe AAP MLAs to switch sides.
On May 28, 2024, the ACMM court had issued a summons to Atishi based on the defamation complaint. However, Atishi approached the special court to challenge the order. On January 28, 2025, Special Judge Vishal Gogne set aside the summons, saying the ACMM’s order contained serious errors.
Judge Gogne further observed, “The complaint by the BJP leader was an attempt to defeat criminal probe and suppress free speech.”
He noted that Atishi’s allegations involved specific claims about a criminal offense, including the use of large amounts of money by a bigger political party against a smaller one.
“If the allegations made by her carry the weight of evidence, it would be for the investigation authorities to examine the same. In the alternative, these are allegations of a political nature which are fit to be answered at the hustings rather than in witness boxes of the courts. In neither of these scenarios would the ingredients of defamation under section 500 IPC be satisfied on the ‘high threshold’,”
he said.
The judge also noted that prosecuting Atishi seemed to be aimed at stopping the narrative that a large political party was trying to overpower smaller ones using financial influence and investigative agencies.
ALSO READ: Court Stays Defamation Proceedings Against Delhi CM Atishi (Next Hearing Dec-2)
Kapoor challenged the special judge’s order in the Delhi High Court. During the hearing, Senior Advocate Ajay Burman, representing Kapoor, argued that neither Kejriwal nor Atishi had provided any proof for their allegations.
“No complaint filed, no details have been provided but she is claiming to be whistle-blower. Defaming the persons without any substance,”
Burman argued before the court.
He also pointed out that the special court had gone beyond its jurisdiction by calling for a status report during revision proceedings.
“There is narrow scope in revision jurisdiction. The learned judge has given a political analysis. Once a summoning order is passed, a prima facie case is made out, even High Courts cannot go into it. This has gone beyond scope of revision. It cannot go into all the issues, like right to speech, politics while deciding defamation. These are all political comments being made. Only should be seen if a prima facie case is made out, if the material was defamatory per se. The court is going into things beyond scope of revision,”
Burman stated.
He further argued that defamation cases should be judged on whether a prima facie case exists, without considering exceptions at this stage.
“Summoning order is serious, shows mind has been applied,” he submitted.
After hearing both sides, the Delhi High Court issued a notice to Atishi and scheduled the next hearing for April 30, 2025.
Case Title:
Praveen Shankar Kapoor v. Atishi Marlena
