The Madhya Pradesh High Court Today (April 4th) stayed a special court’s order for the issuance of bailable warrants against former chief minister Shivraj Singh Chouhan and state BJP president V D Sharma in a criminal defamation case.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
MP: The Madhya Pradesh High Court has intervened to suspend a previous directive from a specialized court that called for the issuance of bailable warrants against two prominent political figures, former Chief Minister Shivraj Singh Chouhan and the President of the State BJP, V D Sharma, amidst a criminal defamation lawsuit. This legal pivot occurs against the backdrop of the impending Lok Sabha elections, highlighting the court’s consideration for the political commitments of the involved leaders.
On Tuesday, a special court tasked with handling cases related to lawmakers had mandated the issuance of bailable warrants against Chouhan and Sharma. This was due to their failure to provide “undertakings” required in the defamation case initiated by Vivek Tankha, a member of the Congress party in the Rajya Sabha. Notably, Sharma is aiming for re-election in the Khajuraho parliamentary constituency, and Chouhan is the BJP’s candidate for Vidisha.
Justice Sanjay Dwivedi, presiding over a single-judge bench, articulated the court’s decision, stating,
“As an interim measure, the impugned orders dated March 22 and April 2 are directed to be stayed and it is also directed that warrants as directed to be issued against the petitioners shall not be issued till the next date of hearing.”
This pronouncement effectively puts a pause on the enforcement of the warrants until further hearings, reflecting the court’s inclination to accommodate the election-related engagements of the defendants.
The appellants, including another former minister, Bhupendra Singh, argued their case by emphasizing their significant roles within the ruling party and their active participation in the upcoming parliamentary elections. Their involvement in these elections, according to the court’s observation, necessitated their exemption from providing personal undertakings due to the demands of the election campaign process.
Representing the defendants, Senior Advocate RN Singh put forth an argument that the allegations were politically motivated, designed to impede their political trajectories. Echoing this sentiment, the court acknowledged,
“He submits that the petitioners have all respect towards the order of the court and they will comply with the same and appear before the court as and when directed.”
This acknowledgment underscores the defendants’ assurance of their respect for and compliance with court orders.
Further deliberations by the court took into account the logistical challenges posed by the geographic distance of the constituencies from the Jabalpur Court, alongside the candidates’ preoccupied schedules due to the electoral campaign. This led to the court’s decision, as noted in the official order, to consider these factors as sufficient grounds for exempting the petitioners from submitting their undertakings for the time being.
Previously, on March 22, the special court had allowed Sharma, Chouhan, and Singh an exemption from personal appearance until June 7. However, the situation took a turn on April 2, when the court decided to issue bailable warrants against them for not meeting the requirement to furnish undertakings. The specificity of these undertakings remained ambiguous, prompting a request for clarification from the BJP leaders, as conveyed by their lawyer, Shyam Vishwakarma.
This legal episode has its roots in a case dating back to January 19 of the previous year, when the special court recognized enough prima facie evidence to proceed with a defamation suit against the BJP leaders, following a complaint by Tankha.
Tankha, who has an esteemed legal background as a senior Supreme Court lawyer and former state advocate general, accused the BJP leaders of defaming him by falsely alleging his involvement in a Supreme Court case concerning the OBC quota in the 2021 Panchayat elections in Madhya Pradesh.
Furthermore, Tankha has sought legal redress through a civil defamation suit, demanding compensatory damages of Rs 10 crore from Sharma, Chouhan, and Singh, illustrating the legal and political complexities of this high-profile defamation case.
Click Here to Read Previous Reports of MPs/MLAs
Click Here to Read Previous Reports on Shivraj Singh Chouhan
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
