The Supreme Court today stayed the operation of a bailable warrant issued against Member of Parliament and former Chief Minister Shivraj Singh Chouhan in a defamation complaint filed by MP and Senior Advocate Vivek Tankha.

The Court was hearing Chouhan's Special Leave Petition against the Madhya Pradesh High Court's refusal to quash proceedings under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Senior Advocate Mahesh Jethmalani, appearing for Chouhan, told the Court that a bailable warrant was issued against Chouhan to appear in person and the next date of hearing is on Monday, November 18.

As the official Court hours were over, Justice Hrishikesh Roy made it clear at the outset of the hearing that Jethmalani only had a short time to convince the Court to grant relief. "Mr. Jethmalani, you are on indulgent time. Just be sure about that, otherwise, we'll get up."

Jethmalani asked the Court to note that "in a summons case in defamation, it is unheard of (for the Court) to issue a bailable warrant. And if one is represented by a counsel, summons is enough." to which Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Senior Advocate and Member of Parliament Vivek Tankha, said, "It doesn't matter. He should appear."

A two-Judge Bench of Justice Roy and Justice S.V. Bhatti, issuing notice in the case, said, "In the meantime, the petitioner shall not be subjected to the process of bailable warrant, subject to their effective participation through counsel before the concerned Court."

Jethmalani told the Court that two statements were under scrutiny in this case. One of these was made in the course of Legislative Assembly proceedings, and would therefore be liable for protection under Article 194(2) of the Constitution. This provision declares that a Member of Legislative Assembly would not be liable to any proceedings in any court “in respect of anything said or any vote given by him in the Parliament or any committee thereof”.

The second statement, he said, was allegedly made during a meeting with MLAs outside the Assembly and reported by a newspaper. "The newspaper does not mention who the author of the report is", he said, questioning its veracity. The first statement and the second alleged statement were made in December 2021 in the backdrop of the panchayat elections, Jethmalani told the Bench, which the Supreme Court had stayed.

On October 25, 2024, the Madhya Pradesh High Court had refused to quash a magisterial Court's Order taking cognisance of criminal defamation complaint. The High Court had said it was for the Trial Court to see if an offence punishable under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code is made out.

At one point in the hearing, Justice Roy, in a lighter vein, asked, "You have no apprehension that if you stay behind bars, your reputation will be enhanced? That kind of scenario is not there?" which led to a short burst of laughter from Jethmalani.

Cause Title: Shivraj Singh Chouhan v. Vivek Krishna Tankha [SLP(Crl) 15212/2024]

Justice Hrishikesh RoyJustice S.V.N. Bhatti

Tushar Kohli