Delhi Court acquits Arvind Kejriwal, Manish Sisodia and Yogendra Yadav in 2013 defamation case

The Rouse Avenue District Court has acquitted Arvind Kejriwal, Manish Sisodia and Yogender Yadav in a 2013 criminal defamation case filed by Surender Kumar Sharma, a lawyer (who expired in 2020).

The complainant, a practicing Advocate and also claiming to be also a social activist, approached the court alleging that the members of the Aam Aadmi Party tarnished his reputation and defamed him so much so that he suffered immense mental agony, loss of respect in the society and financial losses.

It was alleged that through defamatory newspaper articles, Sharma was falsely presented as a person with a criminal record and doubtful credentials. Accused, on the other hand, disowned the news publication, taking a defence of truth for public good.

Sharma claimed that he was a member of the Shahdara Bar Association since 1989 and had been Honorary Secretary of the Shahdara Bar Association for several years having an unblemished political career.

He stated that some volunteers of the Aam Aadmi Party approached him in the second week of June 2013 and told him that Kejriwal was impressed by the social services provided by him and asked him to file an application for contesting the Elections of MLA on its ticket from Shahdara Constituency.

Accordingly, Sharma submitted his application form for contesting as an MLA from Shahdara Constituency on the ticket of Aam Aadmi Party, whereafter, he was interviewed by its Political Affairs Committee and was shortlisted.

Sharma further alleged that at the instance of the accused persons, he had spent Rs. 5,00,000 from his own pocket on campaigning.

The main grievances of Sharma with respect to his alleged defamation came to the fore on October 14, 2013, when he read some newspaper articles in the leading Hindi and English newspapers pertaining to his replacement as the candidate of the seat of MLA from Shahdara Constituency on the ticket of Aam Aadmi Party.

In said articles, Sharma was said to have a criminal history as the elections to the Shahdara Bar Association were cancelled due to allegations of use of unfair means and violence during the election under his chairmanship.

Sharma alleged that such derogatory and defamatory words published in the newspapers lowered his image and reputation at the Bar as well as in the eyes of the general public and society at large.

Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (ACMM) Vidhi Gupta Anand held that it is incumbent upon the prosecution to prove all the ingredients which constitute the offence so that all reasonable doubts in the case of the Complainant are removed. It may be noted that the strongest of suspicion upon the accused, does not lead to proof of the guilt of the accused, Court stated.

ACMM Anand further said that "on mere basis of conjectures and surmises and bald allegations, the complainant cannot bring home the guilt of the Accused and the level of proof required to be brought by the complainant is on a much higher pedestal".

It was found that Sharma was unable to prove on record that the accused persons either authored or authorized the issuance of the alleged press release.

"Neither any media representative of the Accused persons was brought in the witness box to prove the issuance of press release at the instance of the Accused persons nor any first hand statement of any of the Accused persons in respect of the alleged defamatory articles was brought on record", the court held.

In conclusion, the court held that quality and relevancy; and not quantity of evidence, is what determines the fate of a case.

Case Title: Surender Kumar Sharma vs. Arvind Kejriwal & Ors.