Ashok Gehlot, the chief minister of Rajasthan, made a virtual appearance before the Rouse Avenue Court in Delhi on Monday in relation to a defamation lawsuit brought by Union Minister Gajendra Singh Shekhawat.
In response to comments Gehlot made about the “Sanjivani” fraud, Shekhawat recently launched a criminal defamation lawsuit against him.
After noting Gehlot’s attendance today, Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (ACMM) Harjeet Singh Jaspal scheduled the case for August 21 so that documentation could be reviewed.
Furthermore, Sessions Court of Rouse Avenue Court did not halt the complaint case’s proceedings last week while hearing Gehlot’s revision petition, according to ACMM Jaspal.
Gehlot challenges the summons issued
In a defamation charge brought by Union Minister Gajendra Singh Sekhawat, Gehlot has challenged the summons issued and proceedings ongoing against him by the Magistrate Court in the Sessions Court of Delhi’s Rouse Avenue Court.
The Sessions court observed that the primary claim made in the aforementioned complaint case is that the petitioner herein made some statements and speeches against the respondent that were published in print and electronic media. The respondent claims that these statements and speeches were maliciously made for political reasons and that they damaged his reputation.
The statements generally speak to the respondent’s and his family members’ alleged participation in one Sanjivani Scam and their current legal standing in that regard.
The respondent is listed as a Cabinet Minister of the Central Government and a member of the Lok Sabha from Jodhpur, Rajasthan, and the petitioner is currently serving as Chief Minister of the State of Rajasthan. Both of the parties to this petition are therefore in positions of authority and are well-respected in the community, the Court noted.
According to Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (ACMM) Harpreet Singh Jaspal’s statement on July 6 of this year, it appears at first glance that the accused (Ashok Gehlot) has made specific defamatory statements against the complainant after taking into account the relevant facts and circumstances, the complainant’s witnesses’ testimonies, and the evidence submitted for recording.
Additionally, the ACMM stated that it appears, at least on the surface, that the accused’s defamatory words have been adequately broadcast in print, electronic, and social media, raising the possibility that the complainant would be shunned by right-thinking society members.
It seems that the accused intentionally and knowingly made defamatory accusations against the complainant through his spoken words and by statements that were meant to be read. At the expense of brevity, it is once more made clear that this debate cannot be interpreted as a judgement on the case’s ultimate merits because that issue is still under trial, the ACMM noted.
Given the aforementioned debate, there are adequate reasons to call Ashok Gehlot to appear in court according to section 500 of the Indian Penal Code. As a result, upon the submission of the PF and RC in accordance with the law, the stated accused shall be called, said ACMM Harjeet Singh Jaspal.
Senior attorney Vikas Pahwa earlier asserted that Ashok Gehlot is the Chief Minister of Rajasthan and that he is speaking about an ongoing probe while advocating for Gajendra Singh Shekhawat. Who is in charge of this probe is the question. Even if the Chargesheet is presented to the court, the Chief Minister cannot view it since the CrPC does not acknowledge him.
The Chief Minister or a member of the Home Department have no responsibility under Rajasthan Police regulations, either. Making fraudulent claims while being formally barred from the probe. He cannot make a claim since the words are defamatory to me. Senior Advocate Vikas Pahwa contended that revealing a closed-door probe in public would violate his right to protection under Rule197.
He had no business making these false accusations against his colleague and disseminating misleading material to the general public, Pahwa said in ending his argument. This is an act of defamation.
Also Read: Rahul Gandhi’s Lok Sabha Membership Reinstated After 135 Days
Catch all the Latest Business News, Breaking News Events and Latest News Updates on NewsX)
