The Supreme Court on Monday refused to quash the summons issued to former Delhi chief minister Arvind Kejriwal in a defamation case filed against him by the Gujarat University for questioning the academic degree of Prime Minister Narendra Modi.
A bench headed by justice Hrishikesh Roy noted that no relief could be given to Kejriwal since another bench of the top court in April refused to set aside the summons issued to Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) MP Sanjay Singh, who is a co-accused in the same defamation case.
The bench, also comprising justice SVN Bhatti, said, “The complaint filed by respondent (Gujarat University) pertained not only to the present petitioner but also Sanjay Singh whose plea was dismissed by this court on April 8, 2024. We must be consistent with that approach.” Without going into merits, the bench said, “We would not like to entertain the present plea. The same is dismissed.”
Solicitor general (SG) Tushar Mehta brought the April 8, 2024 order passed in Sanjay Singh’s case to the court’s attention. “Unless it is apparent that there is distinction between the statements made by you and Sanjay Singh, one has to look at the order passed on April 8 as a common order,” the court said.
Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, who appeared for Kejriwal along with advocate Vivek Jain, argued that he appeared for Sanjay Singh as well and both cases were distinguishable. But Singhvi was not carrying the statement made by Singh, and requested the court for an additional time of 10 days to file a chart comparing the statements given by the two accused. He also sought to question the basis for maintaining the defamation as nothing was spoken against the University.
Referring to section 499 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) dealing with criminal defamation, Singhvi said that the provision clearly states that the imputation should have the potential to harm the reputation of the person against whom the imputation is made.
“The petitioner does not impute anything to Gujarat University or its registrar Piyush Patel. Where is the legal injury caused? The person allegedly defamed is not the complainant,” Singhvi said. “We live in a democracy. How can it be said that you have no right to know the academic qualification of the Prime Minister, who is the chief of the executive?” he added, reasoning that any other university would come forward and acknowledge that one of the students who studied here has achieved the highest post of Prime Minister.
The bench told Singhvi that it was willing to allow time on the condition that he will not be allowed to withdraw the case later. Placed in a tight spot, Singhvi said he was willing to express regret to bring an end to the controversy.
But the SG said that the petitioner was “in the habit of making defamatory statements and later regretting it… I can give instances of statements starting from Arun Jaitley (former Union finance minister) where he tenders apology on facing proceedings. He makes reckless statements and then says sorry.” Mehta added that his client was not interested in accepting an apology.
The bench then dismissed the appeal filed by Kejriwal, saying all issues can be raised in the trial.
The complaint against the two AAP leaders was based on press conferences by them in April 2023 after the Gujarat high court on March 31 that year set aside an order passed by the chief information commissioner (CIC) directing the Gujarat University to produce a copy of the postgraduate degree of PM Modi to Kejriwal under the right to information (RTI) Act. The university claimed it was available on its website, which was denied by the AAP leaders at the press conferences.
The trial in the matter is pending before the court of additional chief metropolitan magistrate (ACMM) at Gheekanta in Ahmedabad.
Leave a Reply