Read Time: 05 minutes
Praveen Kapoor has approached the Delhi High Court challenging the order of the revisional court. The revisional court had set aside the summoning order issued by the trial court. The revisional court had observed that “allegations made by Ms. Atishi through the tweet and press conferences are in the nature of disclosing the commission of a criminal offence and merit investigation. Ms. Atishi is in the nature of a whistle blower and cannot be treated as having acted to defame the BJP”.
Praveen Kapoor, on Monday, before the Delhi High Court claimed that the reasoning passed by the revisional court to set aside the summoning order against CM Atishi Marlena was ‘a political speech not an order in revision’.
The bench of Justice Vikas Mahajan recorded the submissions and listed the matter for February 4, 2025.
During the proceedings, Advocate Shoumendu Mukherji for Kapoor argued that the case revolved around allegations that the members of BJP had approached Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) MLAs to switch parties. He contended that Marlena failed to provide any evidence to substantiate these claims made during press conferences.
The court inquired whether the complaint had originated from Praveen Kapoor. The advocate responded that the complaint had been filed on behalf of the BJP. It was further stated that the trial court had initially issued a detailed summoning order, following which the revisional court called for a status report.
The advocate presented a list of allegations, stating that Arvind Kejriwal had accused the BJP of attempting to contact 27 AAP MLAs to shift to BJP. Atishi Marlena made similar accusations. However, he asserted that when information was sought from Kejriwal and Marlena, no details or evidence were provided.
Advocate Mukherji emphasized that the revisional court referred to Marlena as a whistleblower. He contended that such allegations were made without evidence to defame individuals. The advocate then proceeded to read defamatory statements recorded in the impugned order.
One such statement, made by CM Atishi Marlena at a press conference, claimed that she was given an ultimatum to either join the BJP or face arrest by the Enforcement Directorate within a month. When the court questioned whether this was orally announced, the advocate stated that Marlena not only made the allegations but also propagated them.
Advocate Mukherji argued that once a summoning order had been issued and a prima facie case established, even the High Court could not interfere. Advocate Mukherji further argued that while the revisional court claimed to uphold freedom of speech, its role was limited to determining whether the statements were defamatory. Instead, Advocate Mukherji asserted that the court made political observations rather than legal determinations.
Continuing his arguments, Advocate Mukherji stated that CM Atishi Marlena had never filed a complaint regarding the allegations. Instead, it was argued that Kapoor’s complaint aimed to expose false claims and sought an inquiry. Advocate Mukherji further questioned how Marlena could be considered a whistleblower when her statements were allegedly false.
Case Title: Praveen Shankar Kapoor v Atishi Marlena
Please Login or Register
