Defamation Case: Delhi Court Set Aside Summons Order Issued To CM Atishi

CM Atishi

The Rouse Avenue Court on Tuesday quashed a summon issued to Delhi Chief Minister Atishi Marlena in a defamation case filed by BJP leader Praveen Shankar Kapoor.

Special Judge Vishal Gogne allowed Atishi’s appeal and stated that the summoning order passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate contained material errors and infirmities. The court emphasized that the threshold for political defamation cases is high, as they involve freedom of speech and the political discourse integral to a democracy.

The defamation case arose after Atishi alleged in a press conference that the BJP had approached her to join their party, warning that she would face arrest by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) if she refused.

Kapoor, a BJP spokesperson and Delhi media head, argued that Atishi’s statements were defamatory and harmed the reputation of the BJP and its members.

Key Court Observations

1. Political Context: The court noted that the allegations were inherently political, requiring a higher threshold for defamation claims.
2. Freedom of Speech: Allegations of corruption or political poaching fall within the scope of free speech, especially when directed at political parties, which are subjects of public discourse.
3. Arbitrary Complaint: The court deemed Kapoor’s complaint ill-conceived, observing that he was not an aggrieved party as defined by law. The court highlighted that even the Delhi BJP chief, Virendra Sachdeva, had sought an investigation into Atishi’s claims, underscoring that the allegations were not personal to Kapoor.

Arguments Presented

Senior advocate Ramesh Gupta, representing Atishi, argued that political defamation cases require specific evidence, which was lacking in Kapoor’s complaint. He further contended that only the BJP as an entity, not individual members, could claim defamation in such cases.

On behalf of Kapoor, senior advocate Ajay Burman contended that Atishi’s remarks at the press conference were false and intentionally defamatory. He argued that her statements had caused reputational harm to Kapoor due to his association with the BJP.

Court’s Decision

The court found that the summoning order issued by the Magistrate on May 28, 2024, lacked sufficient grounds. It highlighted that press conferences are forums for political expression, and statements made therein do not meet the high threshold required for defamation claims against political figures.

The court also noted that Atishi’s allegations had prompted a pending investigation by the crime branch, further undermining the basis of Kapoor’s complaint.

Background

Atishi, during an April 2024 press conference, alleged that the BJP had attempted to coerce her into joining their party by threatening her with ED action. She declared that her party, AAP, would continue to resist such tactics under the leadership of Arvind Kejriwal.

Kapoor subsequently filed a defamation complaint, asserting that Atishi’s remarks were false, scandalous, and damaging to the BJP’s reputation. The Magistrate initially summoned Atishi, leading her to appeal the order.

Conclusion

The court’s ruling reinforces the principle that freedom of speech in the political domain carries a high threshold for defamation claims. Detailed reasoning for the decision will be provided in a subsequent order.