The defamation case was filed in Gujarat High Court by Gujarat University in relation to the statements by the two AAP leaders about Prime Minister (PM) Narendra Modi’s academic degrees.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
The Gujarat High Court has dismissed a plea that sought action against Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leaders Arvind Kejriwal and Sanjay Singh for allegedly defaming Gujarat University in connection with comments made about Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s academic degrees. This decision marks a pivotal moment in a series of legal proceedings that have captured the public’s attention for their implications on freedom of speech and the right to information.
ALSO READ: AAP Clarifies Supreme Court Allegations: Land Allotted in 2015, Not Encroached
Justice Hasmukh D Suthar rejected a plea by Kejriwal and Singh challenging the summons issued by an Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate.
The controversy stems from statements made by the AAP leaders, which led to the issuance of summons by an Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate in April of the previous year. The trial court, in its preliminary view, had stated:
“The statements made about Gujarat University can be interpreted by a prudent person to mean that the university awards false and bogus degrees and is involved in fake activities and thereby tarnishes the image of Gujarat University.”
This assertion by the trial court underscored the perceived severity of the accusations against the university’s credibility and integrity.
Following the trial court’s decision, a Sessions Court upheld the summons, prompting the petitions to the High Court by the AAP leaders. The legal battle is rooted in a broader context, highlighted by the Gujarat High Court’s March 2023 ruling, which determined that the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) was not obligated to disclose Modi’s degree certificates under the Right to Information Act (RTI Act). Justice Biren Vaishnav, in setting aside the order of the Chief Information Commission (CIC) that directed the PMO and the Public Information Officers (PIOs) of Gujarat University and Delhi University to provide details of Modi’s degrees, brought to the forefront the tension between privacy rights and the public’s right to information.
Notably, the High Court had also imposed costs of Rs 25,000 on Arvind Kejriwal, further intensifying the legal and political drama surrounding the case. In December 2023, Kejriwal escalated the matter by filing an appeal against the single-judge’s decision before a division bench of the High Court, a move that indicates the ongoing nature of this legal saga.
The representation of Gujarat University by Senior Counsel ND Nanavaty and Advocate Amit M Nair in this case underscores the significant legal expertise marshaled in these proceedings. Their involvement highlights the case’s importance, not just for the individuals and institutions directly involved, but also for the broader questions it raises about accountability, the right to critique, and the limits of defamation law in the context of public discourse.
This dismissal by the Gujarat High Court does not mark the end of the controversy but rather a continuation of a complex legal and political narrative that touches on fundamental issues of transparency, freedom of speech, and the role of educational institutions in certifying the credentials of those in the highest echelons of power. As the appeal by Kejriwal remains pending, the eyes of the nation remain fixed on how these tensions between personal privacy, public interest, and institutional integrity will be navigated in the courts.
CASE TITLE:
Sanjay Singh vs Gujarat University
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
