Today, On 19th March, The Supreme Court extended its order exempting former Madhya Pradesh Chief Minister Shivraj Singh Chouhan from personal appearance in a defamation case. The case pertains to alleged defamatory remarks, and Chouhan had sought relief from mandatory court presence. The Court’s decision spares him from attending proceedings in person. This extension provides temporary legal relief while the case progresses.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court extended its previous order that exempted Union Agriculture Minister Shivraj Singh Chouhan from personally appearing before a trial court in connection with a criminal defamation case filed against him by Congress MP Vivek Tankha. Tankha, a senior advocate, has alleged that Chouhan, along with BJP state president V D Sharma and former minister Bhupendra Singh, conducted a “coordinated, malicious, false and defamatory” campaign against him for political gain, accusing him of opposing OBC reservation in the 2021 Panchayat elections in Madhya Pradesh.
A bench consisting of Justices MM Sundresh and Rajesh Bindal rescheduled the hearing on Chouhan’s plea, along with those of two other BJP leaders, to March 26.
Also Read: Ex-CM Shivraj Singh Chouhan | MP HC Stays Bailable Warrant Against Chouhan
The Supreme Court was considering Chouhan’s appeal against an October 25 order from the Madhya Pradesh High Court that refused to quash the defamation case. Chouhan was represented by senior advocate Mahesh Jethmalani, while Tankha was represented by senior lawyer Kapil Sibal and advocate Sumeer Sodhi.
Previously, the Supreme Court had stayed the execution of bailable warrants against the three BJP leaders in the defamation case and had sought Tankha’s response regarding the appeal from Chouhan and the other BJP leaders.
Jethmalani argued that the statements referenced in Tankha’s complaint were made on the floor of the House and were protected under Article 194(2) of the Constitution.
Article 194(2) states,
“No member of the Legislature of a State shall be liable to any proceedings in any court in respect of anything said or any vote given by him in the Legislature or any committee thereof, and no person shall be so liable in respect of the publication by or under the authority of a House of such a Legislature of any report, paper, votes or proceedings.”
Jethmalani argued that it was unprecedented for a bailable warrant to be issued by the court in a summons case when the parties could appear through their counsel. He therefore requested a stay on the execution of the bailable warrant.
In response, Sibal contended that the defendants should have appeared before the trial court, questioning what action the court could take if they did not show up.
Jethmalani noted that the two statements alleged to be defamatory by the complainant, Tankha, were made on December 22 and 25, 2021, in relation to an apex court order that stayed the Panchayat elections in the state. On October 25, the High Court had declined to quash the defamation case filed by Tankha against the BJP leaders.
In his complaint to the trial court, Tankha stated that the defamatory remarks were made in the lead-up to the 2021 Panchayat elections. He alleged that following the Supreme Court’s December 17, 2021 order, the BJP leaders accused him of opposing OBC reservation in the local body polls, which damaged his reputation.
Tankha sought Rs 10 crore in compensation and the initiation of criminal defamation proceedings against the BJP leaders.
The complaint further alleged that the three BJP officials conducted a “coordinated, malicious, false and defamatory” campaign against him for political advantage, accusing him of opposing OBC reservation in the Panchayat elections.
Also Read: Ex-CM Shivraj Singh Chouhan | MP HC Stays Bailable Warrant Against Chouhan
The BJP leaders denied the allegations in the High Court, arguing that the newspaper clippings submitted by Tankha could not serve as the basis for a defamation claim, and that the trial court should not have taken cognizance of the matter.
They maintained that the material presented by Tankha did not suggest any insinuation, let alone defamation, as claimed.
On January 20, 2024, a special court in Jabalpur agreed to examine the defamation case against the three BJP leaders under Section 500 (punishment for defamation) of the IPC and summoned them.