Defamation Case: SC To Hear Atishi, Kejriwal’s Plea On Sep 30

defamation case

The Supreme Court on Friday has deferred the hearing on a plea by Delhi Chief Minister Atishi, AAP chief Arvind Kejriwal, and other Aam Aadmi Party leaders seeking to quash a defamation case filed by Delhi BJP leader Rajeev Babbar.

The case centers on allegations made by AAP leaders against the BJP regarding the removal of names from the electoral rolls.

Court Proceedings

A bench comprising Justices Hrishikesh Roy and SVN Bhatti acknowledged comments from senior advocate Sonia Mathur, representing Babbar. She noted that her caveat had not been included in the office report and explained that her response could not be filed due to late service of the petition. The Supreme Court has scheduled the next hearing for Monday, September 30.

Background

The Delhi High Court previously refused to dismiss the defamation proceedings against Kejriwal on September 2. In February 2020, the High Court had temporarily stayed the proceedings against the AAP leaders. AAP representatives had sought to quash two prior court orders: one from a magisterial court dated March 15, 2019, and another from a sessions court dated January 28, 2020.

Kejriwal argued in 2020 that the defamation complaint was not maintainable as it was vague and failed to specify the “person aggrieved.”

Allegations by Rajeev Babbar

Babbar has accused Kejriwal and other AAP leaders of defaming the BJP by alleging that the party was responsible for the removal of 30 lakh names from Delhi’s electoral rolls, predominantly affecting voters from the Baniya, Muslim, and other communities.

The defamation case names several AAP leaders, including Sushil Kumar Gupta, Atishi Marlena, and Manoj Kumar. Babbar contends that their statements were intended to harm the BJP’s reputation by targeting specific voter demographics, which he claims has caused irreparable damage to his standing.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision to defer the hearing allows for further examination of the allegations and the responses from both parties. The upcoming session is anticipated to address the merits of the defamation claims and the legal standing of the involved parties.