Won’t quash defamation case against AAP: Delhi HC

The Delhi high court on Monday refused to quash defamation proceedings against chief minister Arvind Kejriwal and other Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leaders for their remarks over alleged deletion of names of 3 million voters belonging to particular communities from the electoral rolls in the Capital by the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), saying that the imputations were defamatory in nature against the BJP and were made to gain “undue political mileage.”
The other AAP leaders accused in the case included Atishi Marlena, Sushil Kumar Gupta and Manoj Kumar.
A bench of justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta opined that the aspersions which implied that the ruling party at the Centre, entered into corrupt practices for the purpose of deletion of names, had the possibility of “adversely influencing public opinion” against the political party and swaying voters.
According to the court, the imputations also lowered BJP’s reputation and voters’ trust on the party.
“Apparently, the imputations do not have any factual or legal base. The imputations clearly imply that the BJP entered into corrupt or unethical practice, for the purpose of deletion of names of voters of particular communities, which could adversely influence the public opinion against the BJP and sway the voters away from the said communities from voting in favour of BJP at the relevant time prior to elections. Prima facie, the imputations lower down the reputation of BJP and undermine the trust of the voters in the said party,” the bench observed.
The bench added, “Prima facie, the tweets and press conferences appear to be malicious and defamatory to BJP and specifically to Delhi Pradesh (BJP) i.e. the State Unit and the office bearers of the party, with serious consequences of having targeted particular communities. The imputations in the present case are prima facie defamatory, with intention of vilifying Bharatiya Janata Party and gaining undue political mileage by attributing that Bharatiya Janata Party was responsible for deletion of names of about 30 lakh voters belonging to particular communities.”
The court refused to quash the city court’s March 2019 order summoning the leaders as accused saying that the same could not be held to be “bad in law” merely on the ground that witnesses were not examined to prove the newspaper reports or the tweets at large.
In its 33-page order, the court also vacated its 2020 interim order of staying the proceedings before the city court and directed the leaders to appear before the city court on October 3, 2024.
Kejriwal along with the AAP leaders had appealed against the city court’s order upholding the summons issued to them by the magistrate court in a complaint filed by BJP leader Rajiv Babbar. In his complaint, BJP’s vice president, Delhi Pradesh, had alleged that the leaders by their remarks harmed by blaming it for the deletion of the names of voters. The BJP leader had also contended that the leaders, during a press conference held in December 2018, alleged that on the directions of the BJP, the names of 30 lakh voters from the Bania, Purvanchali and Muslim communities had been deleted by the Election Commission.
Kejriwal along with other AAP leaders had also sought for quashing the magistrate court’s March 15, 2019 order and sessions court’s January 28, 2020 order claiming that the complaint was “politically motivated” and Babbar did not fall in the category of aggrieved person.
In their petition before the high court, the leaders, appearing through senior advocate Mohit Mathur, had claimed that their statements were made in good faith, were bonafide expressions of opinion and were not intended to harm or likely to cause harm to Babbar. Rejecting the contention, the judge opined that the same can only be proved at the time of trial.
“The defence of the petitioners that the aforesaid imputations were in good faith and bonafide for the protection of the interest of the voters or public good, needs to be established and proved by the petitioners during the course of trial,” the court maintained.
“Under the constitutional scheme, the citizens have a right to know the truthful and correct information, in order to form appropriate opinion about the social processes. However, at the same time, a political party cannot be permitted to sponsor the print media for political purpose, thereby slinging mud and making mischievous, false and defamatory imputations on the rival political parties,” the court maintained.