After the Supreme Court’s December 17, 2021 order related to OBC reservation, BJP leaders allegedly accused Tankha of being against OBC reservation, which hurt his reputation.
NEW DELHI: On Wednesday, the Supreme Court of India asked Union Agriculture Minister Shivraj Singh Chouhan and Congress Rajya Sabha MP Vivek Tankha to resolve a defamation dispute peacefully through discussion.
This defamation case was filed by Tankha against Chouhan, BJP Madhya Pradesh President V D Sharma, and former minister Bhupendra Singh.
According to Tankha, these BJP leaders ran a “coordinated, malicious, false and defamatory” campaign against him during the 2021 panchayat elections in Madhya Pradesh. He alleged that the BJP accused him of opposing OBC reservation, which damaged his public image and reputation.
A bench of Justices M M Sundresh and Rajesh Bindal told the senior lawyers involved, Mahesh Jethmalani (for Chouhan) and Kapil Sibal (for Tankha):“Please do not make us hear this case. Let us close it. Both of you sit together and settle this.”
The matter before the court was an appeal filed by Chouhan against a Madhya Pradesh High Court order that had refused to quash the defamation case in 2023.
During the hearing, the bench once again advised both parties to resolve the matter out of court.
Kapil Sibal said: “If he (Chouhan) expresses regret, I am willing to settle the defamation case.”
To this, Jethmalani replied: “Why should the minister regret if there is no wrong,” but added, “he personally has no problem in sitting with Sibal to discuss the case.”
The Supreme Court, which was hearing the case through video conferencing, postponed the next hearing to May 21.
Meanwhile, the court noted that Sibal had made a statement saying that Tankha will not oppose Chouhan’s request in the trial court for exemption from personal appearance in the next hearing.
Earlier, the top court had already extended the exemption from personal appearance that it had granted to Chouhan in the ongoing criminal defamation case.
Before this, the Supreme Court also stayed the execution of bailable warrants that had been issued by a lower court against the three BJP leaders.
The court had earlier asked for Tankha’s reply to the appeal filed by Chouhan and the other BJP leaders.
Mahesh Jethmalani argued that the statements mentioned in the complaint were made “on the floor of the House” and therefore were protected by Article 194(2) of the Constitution.
As per Article 194(2) of the Indian Constitution:
“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 further said: “It was unheard“ that a bailable warrant was issued in a summons case where parties can appear through their lawyers.
He also requested the court to stay the execution of the bailable warrant.
However, Kapil Sibal questioned this, saying: “They should have appeared before the trial court in the case,” and asked: “What the trial court would do if they did not appear before it?”
Jethmalani clarified that the alleged defamatory statements were made on December 22 and 25, 2021, around the time the Supreme Court stayed the panchayat elections in Madhya Pradesh.
Earlier, on October 25, 2023, the Madhya Pradesh High Court had refused to dismiss the defamation case filed by Tankha.
In his complaint to the trial court, Tankha said the defamatory statements were made during the run-up to the panchayat elections. After the Supreme Court’s December 17, 2021 order related to OBC reservation, BJP leaders allegedly accused Tankha of being against OBC reservation, which hurt his reputation.
ALSO READ: Ex-CM Shivraj Singh Chouhan | MP HC Stays Bailable Warrant Against Chouhan
Tankha’s plea asked for Rs. 10 crore compensation and the start of criminal defamation proceedings against the BJP leaders.
On January 20, 2024, a special court in Jabalpur agreed to examine the case under Section 500 of the IPC, which deals with punishment for defamation, and issued summons to all three BJP leaders.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
