Read Time: 07 minutes
The case stems from a March 2017 tweet by Swati Chaturvedi in which she alluded to an alleged sexual harassment case against BJP Spokesperson Tajinder Singh Bagga. The high court stayed the trial court proceedings and issued notice to the respondents.
The Delhi High Court on Tuesday stayed trial court proceedings against journalist Swati Chaturvedi in a defamation case filed by Bhartiya Janata Party's Delhi Spokesperson Tajinder Pal Singh Bagga till July 18.
A single-judge bench of Justice Rajnish Bhatnagar issued notice in the plea challenging summons issued by the trial court and listed the matter for further hearing on July 18.
The BJP Spokesperson had filed a defamation suit against the journalist after she made a tweet in 2017. Swati Chaturvedi had tweeted:
"Now the man who beat up @pbhushan1 was arrested in a sexual harassment case speaks for @BJP4India. Good job.”
In 2018, a Magistrate court summoned Chaturvedi to appear before it. Later she challenged the order in December 2022, and the same was dismissed. She then moved the high court challenging the summoning order issued by the magistrate court and the sessions court.
During the hearing today, Advocate Adit Pujari, on behalf of Chaturvedi contended that only one witness has been examined by the petitioner in the criminal complaint filed before the magistrate under Section 200 of CrPC. He submitted that no second witness has been examined by the trial court as per Section 499 Explanation 2 of IPC, who could state that Bagga’s image was lowered because of the tweet.
Pujari also submitted that Bagga himself has stated that he had beaten up Advocate Prashant Bhushan in 2011 and that the victim of sexual harassment herself had tweeted against him.
On the contrary, the counsel appearing for Bagga argued that so far as this stay is concerned, this petition is nothing but a second revision filed under the grab of Section 482 CrPC. He added that there are two concurrent orders against the journalist. Furthermore, he submitted that as per Section 200 CrPC, it was not mandatory for Respondent No. 2 (Bagga) to examine any witness from his testimony, which was sufficient to issue a summons, which has been rightly done in the case.
The counsel on behalf of Bagga also contended that the question of whether his image was lowered in the eyes of the public is a question of fact that can only be decided on the basis of the evidence. He also apprised the bench that the matter regarding the beating up of Advocate Prashant Bhushan is sub judice before the Patiala House Court and that no evidence has been even adduced to prima facie or remotely indicate that he made such a claim.
“So far as the second part of the tweet is concerned, wherein it is stated that I (Bagga) was arrested in the sexual harassment case, My Lord! That is absolutely incorrect. He was never arrested in any sexual harassment case, nor any complaint was lodged against him by the victim. Thus, no prima facie case of any exception under Section 499 is made out. Hence, the petition lacks merit”, the counsel argued.
Taking note of the submissions, the single-judge bench ordered, “Issue Notice. Notice is accepted by the State and Respondent No.2 (Bagga). Response to be filed within two weeks. Rejoinder if any to be filed within two weeks. Till then trial court proceedings are stayed. List on July 18”.
Case Title: Swati Chaturvedi v. State and Anr.
Statue: The Indian Penal Code; The Code of Criminal Procedure
Please Login or Register
