Senior advocate Ramesh Gupta, representing Delhi Chief Minister Atishi, has recently argued in court that political defamation cases have a high threshold, as political parties are often subjects of public criticism and discourse.
Gupta’s statements were made during an appeal against a summons issued by a Magistrate Court in a defamation case filed by BJP leader Praveen Shankar Kapoor.
The matter has been scheduled for further hearing on December 16, when the BJP’s side will present its arguments. Special CBI Judge Vishal Gogne is overseeing the case.
Background of the Defamation Complaint
The defamation case originated from a press conference held by Atishi in April 2024, where she accused the BJP of attempting to coerce her into joining their party. Atishi claimed that a BJP associate had approached her, suggesting that she either join the party or face an imminent arrest by the Enforcement Directorate (ED). Additionally, she alleged that the BJP was using investigative agencies to intimidate opposition leaders.
What Atishi Stated During Press Conference?
“The BJP, through one of my close aides, approached me to join their party to save my political career, and if I do not join the BJP, then in the coming month, I will be arrested by the ED.”
Further, “We are the soldiers of Arvind Kejriwal. We are aides of Bhagat Singh. We will continue to protect the Constitution and work toward a better life for the people under the leadership of Arvind Kejriwal.”
In response to these statements, Kapoor filed a defamation complaint against Atishi, claiming that her remarks were false and malicious, aiming to damage the reputation of the BJP and its members. Kapoor’s legal team, led by advocate Satya Ranjan Swain, sent a legal notice to Atishi, demanding that she retract her comments and issue a public apology.
The notice argued that, as the media head of the BJP’s Delhi unit, Kapoor was personally affected by the defamatory nature of Atishi’s statements. It further criticized her for making vague claims without providing concrete evidence, stating:
“In her speech, she neither revealed the source of her information nor explained the alleged actions of the BJP. Her statement seems to be an unfounded fabrication.”
Legal Arguments in Court
The Rouse Avenue Court had initially issued a summons to Atishi on May 28, 2024, in connection with the defamation complaint. She appeared before the court in July and was granted bail after furnishing the necessary bond. Subsequently, Atishi filed an appeal against the summons, which led to a stay on the proceedings on November 22.
During Monday’s proceedings, Gupta emphasized that an individual member of a political party could not file a defamation complaint on behalf of the entire organization. He argued that if the BJP believed it had been defamed, the party itself should initiate legal action, not one of its members.
“A political party consists of thousands of members, and it is not feasible for every individual to file a defamation suit,”* Gupta argued, suggesting that such a legal approach would set an unreasonably low threshold for defamation claims in political cases.
On the other hand, Kapoor’s legal representatives, senior advocates Ajay Burman and Shoumendu Mukherjee, defended the Magistrate’s decision to issue the summons, asserting that it was based on a thorough review of the evidence presented. The next hearing, set for December 16, will focus on the complainant’s side of the case.
