Breaking: Supreme Court Stays Defamation Case Filed Against Kejriwal, Atishi By BJP's Rajiv Babbar
The Supreme Court today issued notice in a Special Leave Petition (SLP) filed by Arvind Kejriwal and Atishi Marlena challenging a Delhi High Court's judgment, whereby it dismissed their plea in defamation proceedings initiated by BJP Delhi leader Rajiv Babbar in the trial court.
The Bench of Justice Hrishikesh Roy and Justice SVN Bhatti said, "No imputation is said to harm a person's reputation, unless that imputation, directly or indirectly, in the estimation of others, lowers the moral or intellectual character of that person... The impugned judgment of the High Court dated 02.09.2024 is based on, inter alia, the judgment rendered in the Crl MC 1394/2020, i.e. Shashi Tharoor v. State, which stayed by this Court on 10.09.2024. The argument on the side of the petitioner is that unless the injury or stroke harm to the reputation is demonstrable on a prima facie basis and being aggrieved is also demonstrable, summons of an accused on charge of criminal defamation may not be warranted. It is then pointed out that, no where in the complaint, it is mentioned as to how his reputation is lowered in estimation of others..."
"Considered the matter. Issue Notice. Returnable within four weeks. Meanwhile, further proceedings are stayed," the Bench ordered.
During the hearing, Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi appeared for Kejriwal and argued, "My first submission is 199(1), i.e., it is ex-facie and not satisfied. My second submission is on the impugned judgment. Three, the action by Mr. Rajiv Babbar on behalf of the BJP does not constitute a determinate case to be 'person aggrieved'."
"This criminal defamation invocation in this case appears to be excessive, in my humble submission... (reading the complaint), one Rajiv Babbar gets up and says I am the person aggrieved," Singhvi argued, terming Babbar as a 'professional filer'.
On the contrary, Senior Advocate Sonia Mathur, appearing for Babbar, contended that the precedents referred by Singhvi would not apply in this case. "I have a serious objection to such statements; it is completely incorrect," Mathur argued.
The Bench noted, "The concerned statements were made on the eve of the Lok Sabha campaign...as in the run-up to the parliamentary elections, and those should be read as part of the political disclosure. learned Senior Counsel Sonia Mathur pointed out that Respondent No. 2 has not filed the complaint in his personal capacity but as the authorised representative of the party. The counsel would refer to the concerned statement and argue that those prima facie appear to be defamatory with the intention to lower the estimation of BJP amongst the voters. The counsel prays to file a counter affidavit."
"The issue as to whether Respondent No. 2 is an aggrieved person within the definition of Section 199 CrPC will require examination. A similar examination is required to be made whether a political party is an aggrieved party under the relevant section," the Court said.
The Court stated that in our country, freedom of speech is a fundamental right guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, and with the limit to curb speeches in the course of political discourse, the provisions of Section 499 of the IPC to attract defamatory clauses coupled with Section 199 of the CrPC have to be placed at a higher threshold. "In other words, the threshold of criminal defamation is taken at a higher threshold level discourse amongst political persons and political parties...some light can be seen on the threshold level, from the ratio in Subramaniam Swamy v. Union of India...and in the Constitutional Bench's decision in Khushboo," the Court added.
Accordingly, the Court, while issuing notice in the SLP, stayed the defamation case initiated against the AAP leaders.
Pertinently, on September 2, the Delhi High Court had said, "Under the constitutional schemes, the citizens have a right to know the truthful and correct information in order to form appropriate opinion of the social processes. However, at the same time, a political party cannot be permitted to sponsor the print media for political purposes, thereby stinging mud and making mischievous, false, and defamatory imputations on the rival political party."
"Imputations in the present case, are prima facie defamatory, with the intention of vilifying the Bharatiya Janta Party (BJP) and gaining undue political mileage by attributing that BJP was responsible for deletion of names of about 30 lakh names of voters belonging to particular communities," the Court had held.
"..the summoning order passed by the trial court, for commission of offences under 499 and 500 IPC does not call for any interference... for the forgoing reasons, the petition is dismissed. Parties are directed to appear on October 3," the Court had ordered.
Babbar's defamation case alleges that Kejriwal and other leaders of the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) defamed the BJP by accusing it of orchestrating the removal of 30 lakh names from the Delhi electoral rolls, specifically targeting communities such as Bania, Muslims, and others.
The controversy began when Kejriwal and other AAP leaders made public statements accusing the BJP of being responsible for the large-scale deletion of voter names. Babbar filed the defamation case, arguing that these allegations were made with the intent to harm the BJP's reputation by alienating specific voter groups, including the Bania, Poorvanchalis, and Muslim communities. Babbar argued that the voters' list is solely under the jurisdiction of the Election Commission of India and that the BJP had no role in the deletions.
In February 2020, the Delhi High Court had stayed the defamation case proceedings against Kejriwal and other AAP leaders, including Sushil Kumar Gupta, Atishi Marlena, and Manoj Kumar, who were named in the case. The stay came after Kejriwal and the other accused AAP leaders approached the High Court, seeking to quash two lower court orders: a magisterial court's order dated March 15, 2019, and a sessions court's order dated January 28, 2020.
The Trial Court had earlier observed that the allegations made by Kejriwal and the AAP leaders were prima facie defamatory and targeted the BJP. Babbar contended that these statements caused irreparable harm to his reputation and sought legal redress.
Kejriwal had argued before the High Court that the defamation complaint was vague and did not clearly identify the "person aggrieved" by the alleged defamatory statements. He contended that the complaint was not maintainable and should be quashed.
Cause Title: Arvind Kejriwal v. State (NCT of Delhi ) & Anr. [SLP (Crl) No. 13279/2024]