PM Modi Degree Row: SC Stays Defamation Proceedings against Arvind Kejriwal & Sanjay Singh

The Supreme Court on Tuesday stayed the proceedings before a trial court on a defamation complaint filed by Gujarat University against Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal and AAP MP Sanjay Singh.

The complaint pertains to alleged remarks made by them regarding Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s educational qualification.

A bench comprising Justices B R Gavai and Sandeep Mehta passed the order while hearing Singh’s plea, which sought the transfer of the case outside Gujarat, preferably to Kolkata.

The apex court directed the Gujarat High Court to make a decision within four weeks on a plea filed by the AAP leaders, seeking the quashing of summonses issued by the trial court. Meanwhile, the proceedings before the trial court will remain stayed during this period.

Singh, in his plea submitted to the Supreme Court through advocate Karan Sharma, alleged bias in the proceedings before the trial court. He contended that while the plea was pending before the high court, the trial judge was proceeding with the matter.

In August 2023, the Supreme Court had declined to entertain Kejriwal’s plea challenging the high court’s order, which had rejected his request to stay the criminal defamation proceedings initiated by the university.

The defamation case was filed by Gujarat University Registrar Piyush Patel against Kejriwal and Singh based on their alleged comments following the Gujarat High Court’s decision to set aside an order of the chief information commissioner regarding the disclosure of information about Modi’s educational degrees under the Right to Information (RTI) Act.

The high court, on August 11 of the same year, dismissed the plea by Kejriwal and Singh seeking an interim stay on the criminal defamation proceedings. A metropolitan court in Gujarat had earlier summoned both Kejriwal and Singh in the defamation case related to their purportedly “sarcastic” and “derogatory” statements concerning Modi’s educational qualifications.

Although the sessions court rejected their plea for an interim stay on the trial, the AAP leaders approached the high court for redress. The complaint lodged by Patel alleged that the statements made by the two leaders were defamatory and damaged the reputation of the university. Patel contended that their comments were intended to hurt the prestige of the institution. The high court, on March 31 of the same year, had quashed the 2016 order of the Central Information Commission, citing that Kejriwal’s RTI plea seemed “politically vexatious and motivated” rather than based on “sound public interest considerations.”