A bench comprising Justices Hrishikesh Roy and SVN Bhatti requested responses from the Delhi Police and the complainant, BJP leader Rajiv Babbar, regarding the case.
![[Defamation Case] Supreme Court Stays Proceedings Against New Delhi CM Atishi, Arvind Kejriwal](https://i0.wp.com/lawchakra.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/image-4-1.png?resize=820%2C545&ssl=1)
NEW DELHI: On Monday(30th Sept), the Supreme Court stayed the proceedings in a criminal defamation case against Delhi Chief Minister Atishi and former Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal, which was initiated due to comments regarding the purported removal of voters’ names from the electoral rolls in the national capital.
A bench comprising Justices Hrishikesh Roy and SVN Bhatti requested responses from the Delhi Police and the complainant, BJP leader Rajiv Babbar, regarding the case.
Meanwhile, the criminal proceedings against the two Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leaders have been stayed.
Senior Advocate Dr. A.M. Singhvi, representing Kejriwal and Atishi, emphasized the importance of establishing a clear determination of locus standi and identifying the aggrieved party, particularly in cases of criminal defamation.
He argued, “The law mandates a clear determination of locus standi and identification of the aggrieved party, especially in cases of criminal defamation.”
During the proceedings, Justice SVN Bhatti raised inquiries regarding V. Radhakrishnan, prompting Dr. Singhvi to clarify his position:
“We will present our compilation, but Rajiv Babbar is not mentioned by me. He serves as an authorized representative of an unrecognized legal entity, which does not constitute a defined class on its own.”
Dr. Singhvi further elaborated on the nature of the comments in question, framing them within the broader context of political discourse.
“While my lords and I may not express ourselves in such a manner, the current state of political discourse is troubling,” he stated. In response, Justice SVN Bhatti noted, “There’s a lack of sobriety.”
To this, Dr. Singhvi agreed:
“I completely agree. However, everyone has their own way of addressing these issues.”
He then questioned the legitimacy of the complaint, pointing out that Babbar’s sudden declaration of being aggrieved raises concerns.
“He wakes up one day and claims he is aggrieved. Now, let’s discuss the nature of the complaint,”
he remarked.
Justice Bhatti requested to review the authorization that permitted Babbar to represent the Delhi BJP, while Dr. Singhvi underscored that the BJP had indeed won all seven parliamentary seats in Delhi.
He noted,
“This matter will be addressed on the 3rd, and we are seeking interim protection, which includes an exemption from personal appearance.”
Senior Advocate Sonia Mathur has now taken up the mantle for Rajiv Babbar, seeking to submit a counter to the High Court’s position.
“May I submit the High Court counter?”
she inquired.
Justice Roy expressed his frustration over procedural inefficiencies:
“If documents are being handed over like this, then why are we reading in chambers? What is going on?”
Mathur explained the situation, “Saturday was a court holiday.” She then compared the present case to a previous one involving Shashi Tharoor, noting the differences:
“The facts in Tharoor’s case are entirely different, but it was addressed by the learned judge, whether fortunate or unfortunate. In that case, the complainant appeared in person, whereas here, the complaint is authorized by the party.”
The court posed a critical question regarding the political nature of the case:
“So, is the party considered a class in this context? If we assume that it involves political entities and occurred during election time, we are not condoning or taking a stance, but it is part of the political discourse aimed at garnering votes?”
The case arises from allegations made by the two leaders, accusing the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) of being behind the removal of 3 million voters, from specific communities, from the Delhi electoral rolls. The High Court also instructed the AAP leaders to appear for the trial court hearing set for October 3.
A Supreme Court bench, consisting of Justices Hrishikesh Roy and SVN Bhatti, postponed the hearing to September 30 after the complainant’s counsel, BJP’s Delhi Pradesh vice president Rajiv Babbar, claimed he had not been notified about the case listing, despite filing a caveat.
A caveat ensures that the court cannot issue an order without first hearing from the party that submitted it.
“We were treated unfairly by the Supreme Court registry. Despite our caveat, we were only informed last night, leaving us unprepared,”
stated senior counsel Sonia Mathur, representing Babbar, before the bench.
In response, senior counsel Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing Kejriwal and Atishi, indicated that he had no objection to the adjournment.
Consequently, the bench rescheduled the hearing for September 30.
In its September 2 order, the High Court classified the statements made by the AAP leaders as defamatory, indicating that they were intended to gain “undue political mileage.” The defamation complaint also included two other AAP leaders, Sushil Kumar Gupta and Manoj Kumar.
The single-judge bench of the Delhi High Court noted that the accusations from the AAP leaders suggested that the ruling BJP was involved in corrupt practices by manipulating the voter rolls to remove names, potentially swaying public opinion and influencing voters’ decisions. It further stated that these remarks damaged the BJP’s reputation and eroded public trust in the party.
Kejriwal and the other AAP leaders challenged the trial court’s ruling, which upheld the summons issued by the magistrate court in response to Babbar’s complaint. Babbar argued that the AAP leaders harmed the BJP’s reputation by falsely accusing it of instructing the Election Commission to remove voters’ names, particularly from the Bania, Purvanchali, and Muslim communities, during a press conference in December 2018.
The AAP leaders aimed to quash the magistrate court’s order from March 15, 2019, and the sessions court’s order from January 28, 2020, claiming that the complaint was “politically motivated.” They also contended that Babbar was not an aggrieved party.
However, the High Court rejected these arguments, stating that the AAP leaders’ claims of good faith could only be determined at trial. The court emphasized that while citizens have a constitutional right to truthful information, political parties cannot misuse the media to make defamatory allegations against their opponents for political advantage.
The trial court hearing is still scheduled for October 3.
