Today, On 21st January, The Supreme Court granted a BJP leader six weeks to file a response in a defamation case filed by Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal and AAP leader Atishi. The case involves allegations of defamatory statements made during a political campaign. The court’s order ensures sufficient time for the leader to prepare their reply. This case highlights the ongoing legal battles in Indian political discourse.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court granted six weeks for a Delhi BJP leader to respond to a plea from Delhi Chief Minister Atishi and AAP chief Arvind Kejriwal challenging an order that declined to dismiss a defamation case against them regarding their alleged comments on the deletion of voters’ names.
A bench consisting of Justices Hrishikesh Roy and S V N Bhatti adjourned the hearing after the counsel for complainant Rajiv Babbar requested additional time to file his response.
On September 30 of last year, the Supreme Court had issued a notice to Babbar and stayed the proceedings in the trial court. Babbar clarified that he filed the complaint not in an individual capacity but as an authorized representative of the BJP, providing a January 16, 2019, authorization letter to support his claim.
Senior Advocate Sonia Mathur, representing Babbar, argued that the alleged statements were defamatory as they undermined the party’s credibility among voters. Conversely, Senior Advocate Abhishek Singhvi, representing Atishi and Kejriwal, contended that the complaint did not demonstrate how Babbar’s reputation was diminished. Singhvi asserted that the statements were made in the context of political discourse leading up to the Parliamentary elections.
The Supreme Court stated that a key legal question to consider is whether the complainant or a political party falls under the definition of “aggrieved persons” as outlined in Section 199 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which requires further examination.
Emphasizing that the threshold for such complaints should be higher, particularly in the context of political dialogue, the court noted,
“In a democratic nation like India, freedom of speech is a fundamental right guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. A defamatory complaint under Section 499 of the IPC must necessarily be made by an ‘aggrieved person’ under Section 199 of the CrPC,”
The court remarked that the “standard for imposing reasonable restrictions on freedom of speech is very high,” and previous rulings indicate a presumption in favor of the accused.
Also Read: BREAKING|| BJP Leader Sues Arvind Kejriwal and Atishi for Defamation
However, the high court found that the claims made were prima facie defamatory, aimed at vilifying the BJP and gaining undue political advantage.
The high court dismissed the plea filed by Atishi, Kejriwal, former Rajya Sabha MP Sushil Kumar Gupta, and AAP leader Manoj Kumar against the ongoing defamation proceedings in the trial court. It ruled that the trial court’s order to summon the accused under Sections 499 (defamation) and 500 (punishment for defamation) of the IPC did not warrant any interference.
The AAP leaders had previously challenged a sessions court ruling that upheld a magisterial court’s decision to summon them based on Babbar’s complaint. Babbar, representing the BJP’s Delhi unit, sought action against the AAP leaders for allegedly harming the party’s reputation by accusing it of orchestrating the deletion of voters’ names from electoral rolls.
He claimed that during a press conference in December 2018, AAP leaders alleged that the names of 30 lakh voters from the Bania, Poorvanchali, and Muslim communities were removed on the BJP’s directives.
Kejriwal and the other accused argued that the trial court did not recognize that no defamation or other offense had been committed against Babbar or his party, asserting that they did not make any statements against him as alleged.
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
