The top court was hearing the appeal of the Union Minister against the October 25 order of the Madhya Pradesh HC refusing to quash the defamation case filed by Congress MP Vivek Tankha
A Supreme Court bench comprising Justices MM Sundresh and Rajesh Bindal deferred the hearing on a plea filed by Shivraj Singh Chouhan and two other BJP leaders to March 26. File pic
The Supreme Court on Wednesday extended its earlier order exempting Union Agriculture Minister Shivraj Singh Chouhan from personal appearance before a trial court in connection with a criminal defamation case lodged against him by Congress Member of Parliament (MP) Vivek Tankha, news agency PTI reported.
ADVERTISEMENT
Tankha, who also a senior advocate, has alleged that the Union Minister and Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) state president VD Sharma and former minister Bhupendra Singh carried out a "coordinated, malicious, false and defamatory" campaign against him for political mileage, accusing him of opposing Other Backward Classes (OBC) reservation in the 2021 Panchayat Election in Madhya Pradesh.
A Supreme Court bench comprising Justices MM Sundresh and Rajesh Bindal deferred the hearing on a plea filed by Shivraj Singh Chouhan and two other BJP leaders to March 26, PTI reported.
The top court was hearing the appeal of the Union Minister against the October 25 order of the Madhya Pradesh High Court (HC), refusing to quash the defamation case.
While Shivraj Singh Chouhan was represented by senior advocate Mahesh Jethmalani, senior lawyer Kapil Sibal and advocate Sumeer Sodhi were representing the Congress MP.
Earlier, the Supreme Court had stayed the execution of bailable warrants against the three BJP leaders in the defamation case. PTI reported.
It had also sought Tankha's response on the appeal made by Shivraj Singh Chouhan and the other BJP leaders.
Jethmalani argued that the purported statements mentioned in the complaint by Tankha were made on the floor of the House and covered by Article 194(2) of the Constitution, which states, "No member of the Legislature of a State shall be liable to any proceedings in any court in respect of anything said or any vote given by him in the Legislature or any committee thereof, and no person shall be so liable in respect of the publication by or under the authority of a House of such a Legislature of any report, paper, votes or proceedings."
He submitted that it was unheard of that in a summons case, a bailable warrant was issued by the court, when the parties could appear through their counsel.
Jethmalani, therefore, sought a stay on the execution of a bailable warrant.
He stated that the two statements alleged to be defamatory by the complainant were of December 22 and 25, 2021, in a matter related to an apex court order staying the Panchayat Elections in the state.
On October 25, the high court had refused to quash the defamation case lodged by Tankha against the BJP leaders.
Tankha, in his complaint in the trial court, had said defamatory statements were made in the run-up to Panchayat Elections in the state in 2021.
He further alleged that following the December 17, 2021, order of the apex court, it was claimed by the BJP leaders that he had opposed the reservation for the OBC community in the local body polls, which caused damage to his reputation.
Tankha also sought Rs 10 crore as compensation in his plea along with the initiation of criminal defamation proceedings against the BJP leaders.
The complaint further said the three BJP functionaries carried out a "coordinated, malicious, false and defamatory" campaign against him for political mileage, accusing him of opposing OBC reservation in the panchayat election in the Supreme Court.
The BJP leaders, however, refuted the charges in the high court and contended that newspaper clippings annexed by Tankha cannot become the basis of a defamation complaint and the trial court could not have taken its cognisance.
They said the entire material placed on record by Tankha did not suggest any insinuation, let alone defamation, as alleged.
On January 20, 2024, a special court in Jabalpur agreed to examine the defamation case against the three BJP leaders under Section 500 (punishment for defamation) of the IPC and summoned them.
(With PTI inputs)
Subscribe today by clicking the link and stay updated with the latest news!" Click here!
