Updated 16:35 IST, January 21st 2025
SC Gives BJP Leader Six Weeks to Respond on Atishi, Arvind Kejriwal Defamation Case
The Supreme Court granted six weeks to a Delhi BJP leader to respond to a petition filed by Delhi Chief Minister Atishi and AAP leader Arvind Kejriwal.

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Tuesday granted six weeks to a Delhi BJP leader to respond to a petition filed by Delhi Chief Minister Atishi and AAP leader Arvind Kejriwal against an order that refused to quash a defamation case against them over their alleged remarks on the deletion of the voters' names.
A bench comprising Justices Hrishikesh Roy and S.V. N. Bhatti adjourned the matter after Rajiv Babbar, the complainant, requested additional time to file his response.
In a prior hearing on September 30, last year, the apex court had issued a notice to Babbar and stayed trial court proceedings.
Babbar said he did not file the complaint in an individual capacity but as the authorised representative of the BJP, a political party, while bringing on record a January 16, 2019 authorisation letter in support of his claim.
Previously, Senior advocate Sonia Mathur, representing Babbar, argued that the alleged statements were defamatory as they harmed the BJP's credibility among voters. In contrast, senior advocate Abhishek Singhvi, representing Atishi and Kejriwal, contended that Babbar's complaint failed to demonstrate how his reputation was affected. Singhvi added that the remarks were made during the political discourse leading up to parliamentary elections and should be viewed in that context.
The Supreme Court stated that the central issue was whether Babbar or the BJP, as a political party, qualifies as an "aggrieved person" under Section 199 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
"In a democratic nation like India, freedom of speech is a fundamental right guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. Therefore, a defamatory complaint under Section 499 of the IPC must necessarily be made by an 'aggrieved person' under Section 199 of the CrPC. As such, the threshold has to be higher than usual, especially in the context of public discourse amongst political personalities and parties," the court said.
The court highlighted that restrictions on free speech must meet stringent standards, with a presumption in favor of the accused. However, the High Court had earlier found the statements prima facie defamatory, stating that they aimed to vilify the BJP and gain political advantage.
The High Court dismissed the AAP leaders’ plea challenging the trial court's summons for offenses under Sections 499 (defamation) and 500 (punishment for defamation) of the IPC. The AAP leaders had also appealed against the sessions court's decision upholding the magisterial court’s orders from March 15, 2019, and January 28, 2020.
Babbar’s complaint alleged that the AAP leaders, during a December 2018 press conference, accused the BJP of orchestrating the deletion of 30 lakh voters’ names from the electoral rolls, targeting Bania, Poorvanchali, and Muslim communities.
The AAP leaders argued that the trial court failed to recognise that their statements were not defamatory and were not directed at Babbar or his party. They sought to quash the proceedings, maintaining that no offense had been committed.
(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by Republic and is published from a syndicated feed.)
Get Current Updates on India News, Entertainment News along with Latest News and Top Headlines from India and around the world.
Published 16:35 IST, January 21st 2025