Defamation Case: Supreme Court Gives BJP Leader 6 Weeks To Reply On Atishi, Arvind Kejriwal Plea

The Supreme Court on Tuesday granted six weeks to a Delhi BJP leader, Rajiv Babbar, to respond to a plea filed by Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal and AAP leader Atishi challenging a defamation case against them.

The case pertains to alleged remarks made by the AAP leaders accusing the BJP of orchestrating the deletion of voter names.

A bench comprising Justices Hrishikesh Roy and S.V. N Bhatti adjourned the hearing after Babbar’s counsel sought more time to file a response.

Case Background

The defamation case stems from a December 2018 press conference where AAP leaders alleged that the names of 30 lakh voters from the Bania, Poorvanchali, and Muslim communities were removed from the electoral rolls under the BJP’s influence. Babbar, representing the BJP’s Delhi unit, filed a complaint claiming the statements were defamatory, harming the party’s credibility and reputation.

Babbar argued that the statements vilified the BJP and were aimed at gaining undue political mileage. However, AAP leaders contended that the remarks were part of normal political discourse during an election season.

Legal Arguments

Senior advocate Sonia Mathur, representing Babbar, maintained that the statements lowered the BJP’s credibility among voters and met the criteria for defamation under Sections 499 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

In response, senior advocate Abhishek Singhvi, representing Kejriwal and Atishi, argued that the complaint did not demonstrate how Babbar’s or the BJP’s reputation was specifically harmed. He emphasized that the statements were part of electoral rhetoric and should be protected under the constitutional right to freedom of speech.

Observations by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court raised a key legal question: whether a political party or its representative qualifies as an “aggrieved person” under Section 199 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). The bench highlighted that in a democracy, freedom of speech under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution must be protected, particularly in the context of political discourse.

The court observed that defamation complaints require a higher threshold in cases involving public figures or political parties, noting that there is a presumption in favor of the accused.

High Court’s Previous Ruling

Earlier, the Delhi High Court upheld the trial court’s decision to summon Kejriwal, Atishi, and other AAP leaders, stating that the statements were prima facie defamatory and intended to harm the BJP’s reputation. The AAP leaders had sought to quash the trial court’s orders but failed to convince the High Court.

The Supreme Court had earlier stayed the trial court proceedings in September 2023. It will now hear the matter after Babbar files his response. The issue remains a critical test of the balance between free speech and the right to protect reputations in the political sphere.

Read More: Railway Firing Case: Court Refers Ex-RPF Constable To Thane Mental Hospital