Delhi High Court issues notice to CM Atishi on BJP leader's challenge to dismissal of defamation case

The Delhi High Court on Tuesday sought the response of Delhi Chief Minister (CM) Atishi to the plea filed by BJP leader Praveen Shankar Kapoor challenging a special court decision to quash the summons issued against the CM in a defamation case..Justice Vikas Mahajan issued notice to Atishi on Kapoor's plea against the order passed by special MP/MLA judge Vishal Gogne who had taken a dim view of the complaint filed by the BJP leader and quashed the summons issued against the CM by an Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (ACMM) court.Judge Gogne, while dismissing the case, had said that the BJP leader's complaint seemed to be an attempt by a larger party like BJP to scupper the smaller voice of AAP using defamation and the same cannot be permitted. .Background.The complaint accused Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leaders of defamation over statements that the BJP was approaching AAP MLAs and offering them bribes for switching sides.The ACMM on May 28, 2024 issued summons to Atishi on the complaint. Atishi then moved the special court against the same.On January 28 this year, Special Judge (MP/MLA cases) Vishal Gogne quashed the summons, stating that the order passed by ACMM suffered from material error and infirmity. "A court of law cannot aid the tilting of the democratic balance between unequal political formations and against the right to freedom of speech and expressions as well as the right to vote through contrived criminal actions for defamation filed by non aggrieved persons," the special judge said.Pertinently, the special took exception to the complaint filed by the BJP leader and said that a larger party like BJP must project a broader shoulder in accepting alternative political narrative."The big voice cannot scupper the smaller voice using the weapon of defamation. Any foot solider of a big enterprise like the party in question (BJP) must necessarily project broad shoulders in accepting an alternative political narrative. Such responsibility accompanies the privilege of being the ruling party," the special court had said.The complaint by the BJP leader was an attempt to defeat criminal probe and suppress free speech, the special court said.The judge also said that the allegations made by Atishi were in the nature of specific information regarding a possible criminal offence having been committed "with the proposed use of large sums of money by a party with more against a party with less"."If the allegations made by her carry the weight of evidence, it would be for the investigation authorities to examine the same. In the alternative, these are allegations of a political nature which are fit to be answered at the hustings rather than in witness boxes of the courts. In neither of these scenarios would the ingredients of defamation under section 500 IPC be satisfied on the ‘high threshold’," the special judge added.He also said that Atishi's prosecution in the present case was aimed at suppressing the narrative that a large political behemoth was admitting to swallow smaller political outfits by the use of a money power and the threat to unleash investigation agencies.This led to the appeal before the High Court..Arguments.During the hearing before the High Court, Senior Advocate Ajay Burman, appearing for Kapoor, argued that till date, Kejriwal and Atishi have not provided any material to substantiate the allegations. "No complaint filed, no details have been provided but she is claiming to be whistle-blower. Defaming the persons without any substance," the Court stated.He further pointed out that the special court had called for a status report in revisional proceedings and the same was beyond its jurisdiction."There is narrow scope in revision jurisdiction. The learned judge has given a political analysis. Once a summoning order is passed, a prima facie case is made out, even High Courts cannot go into it. This has gone beyond scope of revision. It cannot go into all the issues, like right to speech, politics while deciding defamation. These are all political comments being made. Only should be seen if a prima facie case is made out, if the material was defamatory per se. The court is going into things beyond scope of revision," Burman argued..He stated that prima facie defamation is to be checked and exceptions are not gone into this stage. "Summoning order is serious, shows mind has been applied," he submitted.The Court after hearing the arguments issued notice to Atishi and posted the case for further consideration on April 30.