The Supreme Court Today (Sept 27) adjourned for September 30 a plea by AAP national convener Arvind Kejriwal and Delhi CM Atishi which challenged the Delhi High Court’s refusal to quash a criminal defamation case by BJP leader Rajeev Babbar. The case was filed over their remarks on the alleged deletion of voter names from electoral roll in national capital in 2018.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!![[BREAKING] BJP vs AAP | Kejriwal Defamation Case: SC To Again Hear Matter On Sept 30](https://i0.wp.com/lawchakra.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/image-469.png?resize=690%2C386&ssl=1)
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court adjourned until September 30 a plea filed by Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) national convener Arvind Kejriwal and Delhi Chief Minister Atishi Marlena. They are challenging the Delhi High Court’s decision to refuse to quash a criminal defamation case filed by BJP leader Rajeev Babbar.
This case originated from remarks made by Kejriwal and other AAP leaders regarding the alleged deletion of voter names from the electoral rolls in Delhi in 2018. Their comments led Babbar to file a defamation suit, claiming the allegations damaged the BJP’s reputation.
The Supreme Court bench, comprising Justices Hrishikesh Roy and SVN Bhatti, took up the case on Friday.
During the proceedings, Sonia Mathur, the advocate representing Rajeev Babbar, informed the court that she had only received a service notice the previous night, and felt she was treated unfairly despite being a caveator in the case.
Taking this into account, the court rescheduled the hearing for Monday, September 30.
Background of the Defamation Case
The dispute began when the Delhi High Court, on Sept 2, dismissed a plea by Kejriwal and other AAP leaders to quash the defamation case filed by Rajeev Babbar. Babbar’s defamation suit stems from accusations made by Kejriwal and his party members, who alleged that the BJP had manipulated Delhi’s electoral rolls, removing the names of certain communities, including “Aggarwal” (Baniyas) and Muslims, ahead of the 2018 elections.
Babbar argued that these allegations were repeatedly made by AAP and were intended to tarnish the BJP’s image. He claimed that the remarks caused reputational harm to the party. In response, Kejriwal and his colleagues sought to challenge the defamation case in the High Court, calling the charges “vague” and questioning the legality of the ongoing proceedings.
Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta of the Delhi High Court, however, rejected their plea. He emphasized that in a democracy, “citizens have the right to truthful and accurate information,” while also stating that “mud-slinging by political parties cannot be tolerated.” The court ruled that the statements made by AAP were indeed defamatory, intended to malign the BJP, and aimed at gaining “undue political advantage.”
In 2020, the Delhi High Court had stayed the trial court proceedings in this case. Kejriwal and his co-accused AAP leaders had approached the High Court to contest two orders from the lower courts, including one dated March 15, 2019, from the trial court, and another dated January 28, 2020, from the sessions court.
The Supreme Court’s decision on September 30 is expected to be crucial in determining the future of the defamation case, which has political and legal implications for both parties.
Click Here to Read Previous Reports on Arvind Kejriwal
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
