Gujarat High Court on Friday refused to quash summons issued to Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal and Aam Aadmi Party MP Sanjay Singh in a defamation case filed by Gujarat University regarding statements made by two AAP leaders about Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s academic qualifications [Arvind Gobindram Kejriwal vs State of Gujarat].
Justice Hasmukh D Suthar dismissed the petitions filed by Kejriwal and Singh challenging the summons of the Additional Metropolitan Magistrate.
The court stated that no case was made to obstruct the judge and orders and the defense cannot be examined at this stage.
He also submitted that the judge’s opinion on defamation of the statements made by the AAP leaders was only preliminary and not conclusive as to whether they damaged the image of Gujarat University.
All matters are subject to trial and all defenses would be available to the accused, said the single judge.
Regarding the argument of freedom of speech and expression, judge Suthar commented that freedom of speech cannot mean that a citizen can slander another.
The court also found that the university is a recognizable company and identified class action for defamation.
The registrar is authorized by the university and can appeal, noted
Because the court rejected the requests for lack of justification.
The defamation complaint filed against Kejriwal and Singh alleged that the two politicians had made “defamatory” statements regarding Gujarat University and PM Modi’s academic controversy.
An Additional Capital Magistrate issued a summons to the aforementioned two leaders in April last year.
A cautious person may interpret the allegations made about Gujarat University to mean that the university is awarding bogus and bogus degrees and is involved in fraudulent activities thus tarnishing the image of Gujarat University,the district court had noted in its first opinion.
The Sessions Court subsequently accepted the challenge leading to an appeal to the Court of Appeal.
In the High Court, the AAP leaders argued that the appeal could not be entertained at all as the petitions were not against the university.
The university, however, argued that Kejriwal and Singh tarnished its image with their statements and should be prosecuted.
Background
The defamation claim stems from the Gujarat High Court and its March 2023 ruling that the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) is not required by law to provide a Modiand#039 degree certificate. Information Act (RTI Act).
Justice Biren Vaishnav set aside the Chief Information Commission (CIC) order directing the Public Information Officer (PIO) of the PMO and the PIOs of Gujarat University and Delhi University to provide details of Modi’s graduation and degree. graduate degrees.
The Supreme Court also awarded costs to Arvind Kejriwal in the amount of 20 billion 925,000.
In December 2023, Kejriwal appealed against the Single Judge and the decision in the High Court Division. This appeal is still pending in the Supreme Court.
Soon after the High Court’s verdict against AAP leaders in an RTI case, Gujarat University filed a defamation complaint accusing the two politicians of defamation.
In August of last year, the Supreme Court refused to grant a temporary postponement to hear the case in case of defamation after a judicial summons. The Supreme Court also confirmed the same.
Senior Counsel Rebecca John and Advocate Aum M Kotwal represented the petitioners.
Additional Solicitor General Mitesh Amin and Additional Solicitor General Manan Mehta represented the State
Senior Advocate ND Nanavaty and Advocate Amit M Nair represented the Gujrat University.
Case: Arvind Gobindram Kejriwal vs State of Gujarat
Anam Mukherjee, Ballb (Hons) 4th semester, Techno India University, Intern Under Legal Vidhiya
Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or the materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is of a personal nature.
0 Comments