The Supreme Court on Monday has extended by 4 weeks the stay on trial court proceedings against Congress MP Shashi Tharoor in a defamation case regarding his controversial “scorpion on Shivling” remark directed at Prime Minister Narendra Modi.
A bench consisting of Justices Hrishikesh Roy and S. V. N. Bhatti granted the Delhi police and the complainant, Rajiv Babbar, additional time to file their responses to Tharoor’s plea.
The bench directed, “The interim order (of stay on the defamation proceedings) will continue.”
During the proceedings, counsel for the Delhi police raised the key issue of whether Babbar, a BJP leader, qualifies as an aggrieved party in this case. On September 10, the Supreme Court had already stayed the trial court’s proceedings concerning the defamation complaint against Tharoor.
The Congress MP challenged an August 29 order from the high court that denied his request to quash the defamation proceedings. Tharoor sought to overturn the trial court’s April 27, 2019, order that summoned him as an accused in the criminal defamation complaint filed by Babbar.
Babbar’s complaint contends that Tharoor’s comments hurt his religious sentiments. In October 2018, Tharoor had referenced an unnamed RSS leader who allegedly compared Modi to “a scorpion sitting on a Shivling.” Tharoor described this as an “extraordinarily striking metaphor,” which later prompted the legal action against him.
The ongoing case highlights the complex interplay between political speech and defamation laws in India, raising questions about freedom of expression and the sensitivities surrounding religious sentiments.
As the Supreme Court navigates this legal challenge, the implications for political discourse and accountability remain significant.
The extended stay on the trial proceedings allows Tharoor some respite while the legal proceedings unfold, giving both parties time to present their arguments. The case will continue to attract attention, reflecting broader societal debates about the limits of political rhetoric and the impact of such remarks on public discourse.
As the legal battle continues, it underscores the challenges faced by politicians in balancing free speech with the potential consequences of their statements.
