Supreme Court Extends Stay on Defamation Case Against Kejriwal, Atishi

The Supreme Court on 8 May 2025 continued the stay on criminal defamation proceedings filed by BJP leader Rajeev Babbar against AAP leaders Arvind Kejriwal and Atishi Marlena over their remarks on the alleged deletion of voters from Delhi’s electoral rolls in 2018.

When the matter was taken up, a Division Bench of Justices M.M. Sundresh and Rajesh Bindal remarked, "You settle the scores somewhere else, as a political personality, you should have thick skin."

At the outset, Advocate Piyush Beriwal, appearing for the complainant, sought four weeks to file his reply.

"My lords, I appear for the complainant, and I'm seeking four weeks' time. My reply is ready and currently under vetting...," he added.

Taking note of the submission, the court proceeded to adjourn the matter while also adding that the proceedings before the trial court shall remain stayed.

The top court had previously stayed the criminal defamation proceedings against AAP leaders Kejriwal and Atishi Marlena.

AAP leaders Atishi Marlena and Kejriwal had moved the top court challenging the Delhi High Court, which had refused to quash the criminal defamation case filed against them.

The case arose after AAP leaders Kejriwal, Atishi publicly accused the BJP of the deletion of voter names from Delhi's electoral rolls. BJP leader Rajeev Babbar had then filed a criminal defamation suit against them, asserting that the allegation harmed the reputation of the party.

In September 2024, the Delhi High Court dismissed the petition filed by Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal seeking to quash the summons issued in a defamation suit filed by BJP leader Rajiv Babbar

The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta rejected the request by Kejriwal and AAP leaders to overturn a sessions court’s decision, which had upheld a magisterial court’s order to summon them as defendants in the case.

High Court had deemed the remarks as prima facie defamatory, intended to disparage the BJP by accusing it of orchestrating the removal of voter names. It was observed that these statements were made to gain political advantage.

Consequently, the court had upheld the trial court's decision to summon Kejriwal and other AAP leaders for defamation. The court noted that while citizens have the right to obtain accurate information to form opinions about political processes, a political party cannot endorse the media to disseminate defamatory statements against rival parties.

Case Title: ARVIND KEJRIWAL vs STATE OF NCT OF Delhi