Read Time: 12 minutes

Synopsis

The Rouse Avenue Court, on Tuesday, quashed the summons issued to the present Chief Minister Atishi Marlena in a defamation suit filed by Praveen Shankar Kapoor, the Media Head and Spokesperson of the Delhi unit of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). Court has pointed out that 

"Regardless of status, a complainant, even if a seemingly powerful person as the Chief Minister, deserves protection, at least from prosecution on the specious allegations of defamation," said the court.

Special Judge Vishal Gogne held that the the allegations in the present complaint are fit to be answered at the hustings, instead of witness boxes of courts, in line with political discourses.

"Allegations made by Ms. Atishi regarding poaching of MLAs are as much a part of the right to free political speech as they are an effort to report a specific act of alleged corrupt practice. There is no particular reason for the court to discern hightened sensitivity of an allegation and treat it as defamatory only because it is made against the ruling party of the day," the court noted. The court also said that political questions must be answered by the court of the people through elections and not the courts of law through discussions and defamations. 

The Court pointed out that the case could not stand as no identifiable person could be traced in the case as Marlena had made a generalised statement against the BJP vis-a-vis an attempt by it at bribery of Rs. 25 crores each to multiple MLA's of the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP). 

"...‘some person aggrieved’ under section 199 Cr. PC in the context of defamation is not an entitlement arising out of any particular status in law but a perception of the purported ‘some person aggrieved’ based on having been lowered in the estimation of others through the defamatory allegations," the court said, highlighting that a person looking to represent himself as "some aggrieved person" on account of being the member of a political party cannot claim legal status as a member of the political party.

"His efforts to somehow claim legal status as ‘some person aggrieved’ fall abysmally short in the context of the above three powerful circumstances. There is absolutely no defamation of the media head of the BJP if the leader of the AAP accuses the BJP of trying to buy their MLAs with huge sums of money," the court held, while examining the complaint under investigation by the crime branch, filed at behest of Virendra Sachdeva, the Delhi BJP President.

In August 2022, Kapoor alleged that in an attempt to divert attention from the excise policy scam case, AAP leaders had falsely accused the BJP of bribing AAP MLAs to defect. The complaint cited statements made by AAP leaders, including Sanjay Singh, who had claimed that the BJP had attempted to bribe four AAP legislators. Kapoor further pointed out that Arvind Kejriwal had used social media to portray himself as a victim of political vendetta in January 2024, while Marlena had allegedly amplified such content and conducted a defamatory press conference. Thereafter, CM Atishi was summoned by the trial court. Thus, she approached the revision court challenging the summoning order. 

The court noted that the complainant had failed to provide independent witnesses or public testimony to substantiate his claims, relying instead on hearsay and his statement. This rendered the defamation claim weak and unsupported by adequate evidence. Furthermore, the court noted that the allegations against Arvind Kejriwal, which were central to the case, were not detailed or specific enough to merit legal action. 

The court further noted that Kapoor does not satisfy the criteria of being a ‘some person aggrieved’ within the meaning of section 199 of the Cr.P.C. The court questioned whether Kapoor, as the Media Head of the BJP, was genuinely perceived by the public as the person responsible for the alleged wrongdoing (bribing AAP MLA to resign). The evidence presented in the complaint did not establish any significant association between Kapoor and the allegations, rendering the defamation claims arbitrary. 

The court also examined the impact of the pending investigation into the allegations of MLA poaching, which had been brought to light by Atishi’s press conferences and social media posts. Atishi had essentially acted as a whistleblower, bringing attention to alleged corruption, and as such, her statements warranted further investigation.

In addressing the constitutional implications of the case, the court emphasized that political discourse, especially regarding allegations of corruption, falls within the protection of freedom of speech. Allegations of this nature are a legitimate part of the democratic process and should not be stifled by defamation suits, which could discourage political debate and criticism. 

The court further noted that the right to freedom of speech, as guaranteed by the Indian Constitution, should take precedence over defamation claims in cases involving political figures and public policy matters and on account of being a ruling national party, the BJP must "necessarily project broad shoulders in accepting an alternative political narrative. Such responsibility accompanies the privilege of being the ruling party".

The court thus found that the defamation claim brought by Kapoor did not meet the high threshold required for defamation cases involving political speech. The court thus observed, “the allegations made by the complainant do not satisfy the ‘high threshold’ test recognised by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Khushboo and reiterated in Arvind Kejriwal (dated 30.09.2024) and Shashi Tharoor (dated 10.09.2024)”

The court outlined that, “The complaint by Mr. Praveen Shankar Kapoor is an attempt to defeat criminal investigation and supress the freedom of speech as well as the right to know”. Thus, the court allowed the revision petition and quashed the summoning order. 

Case Title (download judgment): Atishi Marlena v Praveen Shankar Kapoor