SC extends stay on defamation trial against Delhi CM Kejriwal

On February 26, the top court had asked the complainant to take instructions on a submission made by Kejriwal’s lawyer, who said it was a mistake to have re-tweeted and he was willing to apologise

The Supreme Court on Monday extended the order staying criminal defamation proceedings against Delhi chief minister Arvind Kejriwal for another two months after the complainant told the court that he was open to considering a public apology issued by the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) chief, who had objected to a re-tweet of an offensive video against the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) on X in 2018.

The Supreme Court on Monday extended the order staying criminal defamation proceedings against Delhi chief minister Arvind Kejriwal for another two months. (HT Photo)

Giving time for Kejriwal to draft the apology, a bench of justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta said, “If you want to give an apology, you can do so without affecting your rights and contentions. Or else if you want us to hear your appeal, we are ready to examine the legal issue whether a re-tweet amounts to criminal defamation.”

The matter will be taken up in the week beginning May 13. Till then, the court held, “The interim order directing the trial court not to proceed with the matter will remain in place till the next date of hearing.”

The court was considering a petition filed by the Delhi CM against a February 5 order of the Delhi high court refusing to quash the summons issued against him by a city court in 2019 based on a complaint filed by one Vikas Sankrityayan. The HC directed Kejriwal to face trial for re-tweeting a video of YouTuber Dhruv Rathee titled “BJP IT Cell Part II” in May 2018 and reminded him that as a public figure, his tweets have far-reaching ramifications.

On February 26, the top court had asked the complainant to take instructions on a submission made by Kejriwal’s lawyer, senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, who said it was a mistake to have re-tweeted and he was willing to issue an apology.

Appearing for the complainant, advocate Raghav Awasthi told the court that his client will seek a public apology from the chief minister. Singhvi told the court that the complainant must explain how he initially withdrew the complaint and revived it after a year.

The bench told Singhvi, “We are not going to go into that aspect. What you want to say in your apology we will tell it to the other side. If he agrees, its fine. You can choose your words. Otherwise, if we find a case made out in your petition, we will stay the HC order or we will dismiss it.”

Kejriwal, in his petition filed through advocate Vivek Jain, said that the complainant has not established how the “re-tweet” caused any legal injury as required under section 499 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) dealing with defamation. “The only injury sought to be portrayed is that out of 1.5 crore followers of respondent (Vikas Sankrityayan) on Facebook, one follower, i.e., complainant’s witness, has unfollowed him.”

On the previous date, Singhvi alleged that the trial picked up pace due to the upcoming elections. Awasthi, however, denied that his client was pursuing the matter for any political purpose. Even the original tweet was deleted by the author and thus the defamation proceedings based on the retweet could not sustain, Singhvi added.

The court is yet to issue notice on the petition and wished to explore the possibility of knowing the stand of the complainant after the petitioner was willing to accept it as a mistake.

Kejriwal’s petition accused the complainant of suppressing the truth. It was pointed out that a complaint was initially filed in July 2018 against the video author where Kejriwal was not mentioned. This complaint was withdrawn in October 2018 and four months later, in February 2019, the present complaint was filed.

The Delhi high court had refused to stay the summons and said that when a public figure tweets a defamatory post on social media, the ramifications can be far serious. The HC further added that in the digital age, the implications of defamation are heightened as the boundaries of publication become expanded having potential of widespread dissemination.