Today, on 21st October, The Supreme Court upheld the summons issued to Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal in a defamation case concerning Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s educational qualifications. A Bench comprising Justices Hrishikesh Roy and SVN Bhatti noted that a similar petition by AAP MP Sanjay Singh had previously been dismissed. The defamation case stems from remarks made by Kejriwal questioning Modi’s academic credentials.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court, On Monday, declined to annul the summons issued by a trial court in Gujarat to Arvind Kejriwal, the chief of the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP), regarding a defamation case brought against him by Gujarat University.
This case arises from Kejriwal’s remarks about Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s academic qualifications.
A bench comprising Justices Hrishikesh Roy and SVN Bhatti noted that a similar request from AAP legislator Sanjay Singh had previously been rejected by the Court.
They stated,
“We are not inclined to interfere since one appellant came before us and it was dismissed,”
They dismissed Kejriwal’s appeal against a ruling from the Gujarat High Court.
Kejriwal’s counsel, Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, contended that Singh’s statements were distinct; however, the bench chose not to entertain this argument.
Read Also: Hate Speech Case Against PM Modi, Bengaluru Court Dismissed the Complaint
They remarked,
“It is seen that the complaint filed by respondent 1 (Gujarat University) pertained to not only the present petitioner but also Sanjay Singh, whose plea was dismissed by this court on April 8, 2024. We must be consistent with that approach. Having regard to that view, we would not like to entertain the present plea. The same is dismissed.”
In February, the Gujarat High Court declined to dismiss the summons issued to Arvind Kejriwal in a defamation case brought by Gujarat University concerning his remarks about Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s academic degrees. Following this, Kejriwal filed an appeal with the Supreme Court, seeking to quash the criminal proceedings against him.
The appeal submitted through advocate Vivek Jain.
The defamation complaint alleged that both Kejriwal and AAP lawmaker Sanjay Singh made “defamatory” statements about Gujarat University in connection with the controversy surrounding PM Modi’s degrees. The summons for the two leaders were issued by an Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate in April of the previous year.
Before the High Court, the AAP leaders argued that the complaint was not valid, asserting that their statements were not directed against the university.
However, Gujarat University maintained that the remarks made by Kejriwal and Singh had harmed its reputation and warranted a trial.
Additionally, in March 2023, the Gujarat High Court ruled that the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) was not required to disclose Modi’s degree certificates under the Right to Information Act (RTI). Justice Biren Vaishnav overturned a decision by the Chief Information Commission (CIC) that mandated the public information officer (PIO) of the PMO, as well as those from Gujarat University and Delhi University, to provide details of Modi’s undergraduate and postgraduate degrees to Kejriwal.
The High Court also imposed a cost of Rs. 25,000 on Kejriwal.
Shortly after this ruling, Gujarat University filed the defamation complaint against Kejriwal and Singh. When the High Court refused to quash the defamation proceedings, the two politicians escalated the matter to the Supreme Court. Sanjay Singh’s appeal was dismissed by a different bench earlier in April of this year.
During the hearing of Kejriwal’s appeal, Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing the former Chief Minister of Delhi, argued that no statements were made against Gujarat University, thus rendering the defamation complaint invalid.
He stated,
“Here, the complaint is by the registrar of Gujarat University. There is nothing said against the registrar or Gujarat University.”
Singhvi further contended that requesting the disclosure of degrees held by public figures should not be grounds for a defamation claim.
He remarked,
“With great respect, it is not the right way of looking at the issue where disclosing the degree of major public officials allegedly leads to defamation.”
In response, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the University, asserted, “After the High Court sets aside the CIC order, he holds a press conference where he defames us.”
After considering the arguments from both sides, the Court ultimately decided to dismiss the case.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
