Politicians Should Have A Thick Skin: Supreme Court Says While Adjourning Defamation Case Involving Arvind Kejriwal
In a plea arising out of complaint by a BJP leader against Kejriwal and Atishi Marlena, the Court also remarked that politicians may settle the scores somewhere else.
The Supreme Court today adjourned a Special Leave Petition (SLP) filed by Arvind Kejriwal and Atishi Marlena challenging a Delhi High Court's judgment dismissing their plea for quashing summons issued in a defamation complaint initiated by BJP Delhi leader Rajiv Babbar before the Trial Court.
A Bench of Justice M.M. Sundresh and Justice Rajesh Bindal, while granting adjournment, remarked, “Settle the scores somewhere else…as a political personality first thing you should have is thick skin.”
Justice Bindal added, “This is a new type of litigation…”
Counsels for Rajiv Babbar and Counsel for Arvind Kejriwal appeared and sought four weeks' time.
The Court had issued notice in the matter on September 30, 2024, and stayed any further proceedings. It had observed, "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..."
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. He asserted 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 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 Magistrate’s order dated March 15, 2019, and a Sessions Court's order dated January 28, 2020. However, subsequently, the High Court had dismissed the pleas.
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]
