Delhi Chief Minister Atishi, facing a defamation case, argued in court that the threshold for political defamation is high due to the public nature of political discourse. Her lawyer claimed her statements were directed at the BJP, not individual spokesperson Praveen Shankar Kapoor. The court will hear further arguments in December, which may influence the case’s outcome.
New Delhi: Delhi Chief Minister Atishi, accused in a defamation case, argued before a special court on Monday that “the threshold in political defamation cases is high” because political parties are subjects of public discourse. Her counsel, senior advocate Ramesh Gupta, defended her against a magisterial court’s summon issued on a complaint by BJP spokesperson Praveen Shankar Kapoor.
Gupta contended that Atishi’s alleged defamatory statement targeted the BJP, not Kapoor individually. He argued,
“He (Kapoor) is not a victim of defamation. The appellant made a statement against the BJP. If it is taken to be true, BJP is the victim or aggrieved, [and] can file a complaint.”
Highlighting that political parties can have millions of members, he added, “All cannot file defamation complaints. In this case, the threshold is very high.”
The court, presided over by Special Judge Vishal Gogne, has scheduled arguments from the complainant on December 16.
The defamation complaint arose after Atishi reportedly claimed that 21 AAP MLAs were approached by the BJP with offers of Rs 25 lakh each to switch allegiance and destabilize the Delhi government. Kapoor, accusing Atishi of making false claims without evidence, filed a criminal defamation complaint, asserting that her allegations defamed him and damaged his reputation.
While the magisterial court issued summons to Atishi on May 28, it declined to summon former Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal, who was also named in the complaint. Atishi appeared in court in July and was granted bail.
On November 22, the special court stayed proceedings initiated by the magisterial court, giving Atishi a reprieve. In Monday’s hearing, her counsel emphasized that such political defamation cases require a higher evidentiary threshold due to their broader implications on public discourse and political accountability.
Kapoor alleged that Atishi’s claims of poaching attempts by the BJP were baseless and lacked substantiation. He contended that her statements were aimed at maligning his personal reputation and the BJP’s image.
As the case progresses, the court will evaluate whether Atishi’s statements qualify as defamatory under the law, considering the political context and the high threshold required in such matters. The complainant’s arguments on December 16 will be pivotal in determining the case’s trajectory.
This case highlights the complex intersection of politics, public accountability, and legal thresholds in defamation cases involving high-profile leaders.
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES