The Madhya Pradesh High Court has upheld the trial court’s decision to hear MP Vivek Krishna Tankha’s defamation case against Union Minister Shivraj Singh Chouhan and BJP leaders Vishnu Datt Sharma and Bhoopendra Singh. Tankha alleges defamatory remarks related to the 2021 State Panchayat elections. Justice Sanjay Dwivedi emphasized that admissibility and sufficiency of evidence will be assessed during the trial.
Madhya Pradesh: In a recent decision, the Madhya Pradesh High Court upheld a trial court’s decision to take cognizance of a defamation complaint filed by Senior Advocate and Member of Parliament (MP) Vivek Krishna Tankha against Union Minister Shivraj Singh Chouhan and two other BJP leaders, MP Vishnu Datt Sharma and MLA Bhoopendra Singh. The complaint alleges defamation connected to statements made during the 2021 State Panchayat election case in the Supreme Court.
Tankha’s criminal defamation complaint claims the BJP leaders publicly defamed him with statements related to the high-profile Panchayat election case. The trial court initially accepted Tankha’s complaint, prompting Chouhan and others to challenge the court’s decision.
Read Also: Karnataka HC Set to Rule on Darshan Thoogudeepa’s Interim Bail in Renukaswamy Murder Case
Justice Sanjay Dwivedi, presiding over the case on October 25, ruled in favor of proceeding with the trial. The Court emphasized that “the case has to be decided on merits in Court.” Justice Dwivedi further stated that it was not within the Court’s purview at this preliminary stage to deem the material provided by Tankha as inadmissible, explaining that
“whether the offence under Section 499 (defamation) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) has been committed can only be determined based on evidence produced during the trial.”
Defense Arguments on Admissibility of Evidence
The counsel representing Chouhan and the co-accused argued that the material presented was insufficient and inadmissible for justifying a trial. However, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Tankha, countered that the evidence was adequate for taking cognizance. Sibal highlighted that the admissibility of evidence would be subject to determination during the trial, not at this preliminary phase.
The High Court agreed with Sibal’s stance, referring to a Supreme Court precedent indicating that
“the only requirement at this stage is to determine if the material presented justifies cognizance.”
Justice Dwivedi’s ruling underscored that since evidence had been submitted, it must now go through the proper judicial process to assess its validity and sufficiency for conviction.
“If the court finds that the evidence cannot be disregarded at the initial stage, it is bound to proceed with the trial and issue summons to the accused,”
the Court noted.
High Court’s Observations on Witnesses
The High Court also addressed the defense’s argument regarding witness admissibility. The defense asserted that no newspaper reporters were included in the witness list, implying that other witnesses should not be allowed. However, the Court clarified that the absence of a specific type of witness does not prevent the inclusion of other relevant witnesses.
“That is not a ground for deeming the material inadmissible,”
the Court said, reinforcing the idea that the trial court has the authority to summon any pertinent witness, even if not initially listed.
Dismissing the Quash Petition
Ultimately, the High Court dismissed the petition filed by Chouhan and his co-accused to quash the defamation complaint and trial court order. The judgment affirms that the trial must proceed based on the presented evidence to determine whether the statements in question constitute defamation under the IPC.
Read Also: ED Charges AAP MLA Amanatullah Khan in Waqf Board Money Laundering Case
Legal Representation
Senior Advocate Surendra Singh, along with advocates Akshat Arjariya, Rohan Harne, and Karnik Jaggi, represented the BJP leaders in their legal challenge. Tankha’s legal team included Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, with advocates HS Chhabra and Shivendra Pandey.
This ruling marks a significant step forward in the defamation proceedings, allowing Tankha’s complaint to proceed to trial where the evidence will be tested on its merits. The case underscores the judiciary’s role in balancing free expression and accountability, particularly within the political arena.
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES