Rajasthan HC Stays Defamation Proceedings Against Drishti IAS Founder

Dr Vikas Divyakirti

The Rajasthan High Court on Wednesday paused all legal proceedings in a defamation case filed against Dr Vikas Divyakirti, founder of Drishti IAS, currently pending before a local court in Ajmer.

Justice Sameer Jain granted an interim stay on the trial after Divyakirti approached the High Court seeking dismissal of the complaint, which he claims is without merit.

Complaint Over Remarks On Judiciary

The defamation case stems from statements allegedly made by Divyakirti during one of his lectures, which the complainant claims were derogatory toward India’s judiciary and legal system.

The issue came to light when an advocate filed a defamation petition in an Ajmer court, accusing Divyakirti of making disrespectful remarks that could undermine public confidence in the justice system.

Following this, the subordinate court took cognisance of the complaint and issued a summons for Divyakirti to appear on July 22. He later filed an application seeking exemption from personal appearance, which was granted, and the court then directed him to appear on August 2.

“Freedom Of Expression” Argument Raised

Divyakirti was represented by advocates V. R. Bajwa and Sumeer Sodhi in the High Court. Arguing in his defence, his legal team maintained that the statements in question were made in a private academic setting and do not constitute defamation.

“The case arises out of certain statements allegedly made by Dr Divyakirti during one of his lectures. Observing such statements made in a closed environment cannot amount to defamation, and Dr Divyakirti had a fundamental right to express his opinions and views,” said Advocate Sumeer Sodhi.

The High Court found merit in this preliminary argument and ordered a stay on the proceedings while the matter is under review.

What’s Next?

With the stay now in place, the proceedings before the Ajmer court will remain on hold until the High Court makes a final decision on Divyakirti’s plea to quash the complaint.

The case highlights the ongoing debate over the limits of free speech—particularly in academic and educational contexts—and whether personal or critical remarks can be interpreted as defamatory when not made in public forums.