Alina
SC Halts Defamation Against AAP
SC Halts Defamation Proceedings Against Kejriwal and Atishi
Supreme Court Grants Relief to AAP Leaders
In a significant development, the Supreme Court of India has temporarily halted defamation proceedings against Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) national convenor Arvind Kejriwal and Delhi Chief Minister Atishi. The case, filed over remarks made by the AAP leaders regarding the alleged deletion of voter names from electoral rolls, was paused by the apex court on Monday, September 30. This move offers temporary relief to the AAP leaders as they face accusations of defaming the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP).
Interim Order by Supreme Court
A bench led by Justice Hrishikesh Roy, along with Justice SVN Bhatti, passed the interim order in favor of the AAP leaders. The bench emphasized the importance of raising the threshold of political discourse, particularly in cases involving defamation suits filed by political parties.
In its interim statement, the court said, “The political discourse has to be placed at a higher threshold.” The bench noted that there is a significant question regarding whether a political party can be considered an “aggrieved person” and therefore eligible to file a defamation suit. This matter, the bench highlighted, requires a more in-depth examination.
The court issued a notice and stated, “Issue notice returnable in four weeks. In the meantime, further proceedings shall remain stayed.” This stay means that no further actions will be taken in the defamation case until the court reexamines the issue in a month’s time.
Background of the Defamation Case
The defamation case in question was filed against Arvind Kejriwal and Atishi due to remarks they made accusing the BJP of orchestrating the deletion of around 30 lakh voter names from the electoral rolls. These alleged deletions, they claimed, disproportionately affected specific communities. The BJP, in response, filed a defamation suit, arguing that the AAP leaders’ statements were aimed at maligning the party’s reputation and gaining political advantage.
In an earlier ruling, the Delhi High Court had refused to intervene in the case, thereby allowing the trial court’s summoning order to stand. The trial court had summoned Kejriwal and Atishi under Sections 499 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which pertain to defamation. These sections, however, have since been repealed following the recent Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita reforms.
Delhi High Court’s Stand on Defamation
On September 2, the Delhi High Court dismissed a petition from the AAP leaders that sought to overturn the trial court’s order. Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta, who delivered the High Court’s ruling, argued that the defense provided by the AAP leaders—that their statements were made in good faith and in the public interest—would have to be established during the course of the trial.
In his judgment, Justice Mendiratta stated, “The imputations in the present case are prima facie defamatory, with the intention of vilifying the BJP and gaining undue political mileage by attributing that the BJP was responsible for the deletion of the names of about 30 lakh voters belonging to particular communities.” He further added that whether the statements were made bona fide would be determined through the trial process.
Supreme Court’s Focus on Political Discourse
The Supreme Court’s interim order not only grants temporary relief to the AAP leaders but also brings to light a larger issue: the standards of political discourse in India. The court stressed that political rhetoric and accusations must meet a higher threshold, especially when such statements form the basis of defamation suits.
Furthermore, the Supreme Court hinted that the legal interpretation of defamation laws, especially in the context of political parties, may need re-examination. The question of whether a political party can be considered an “aggrieved person” eligible to file defamation suits is one of significant legal consequence, and the court is likely to address this in its future rulings.
Implications for Future Defamation Cases
This ruling could have far-reaching implications for how defamation cases are handled in India, particularly those involving political figures. The Supreme Court’s approach suggests a more cautious and detailed examination of whether defamation laws are being misused to stifle political criticism. By putting the proceedings on hold, the court has signaled that such cases must be carefully scrutinized to ensure they do not infringe on the right to free speech or hinder robust political debate.
The outcome of this case will not only impact Kejriwal and Atishi but could also set a precedent for future cases involving political figures and defamation claims. The final ruling, expected after further hearings, will likely address the broader legal and constitutional issues related to political speech, defamation, and the rights of political parties.
Disclaimer:
This article provides information based on court rulings and legal proceedings. The details are subject to change as the case develops. Readers are advised to consult official legal sources for the latest updates.
