SC relief to Shivraj Singh Chauhan in defamation case filed by Vivek Thanka
The Supreme Court allowed Shivraj Chauhan to appear before the trial court through a lawyer after the court issued bailable warrants to secure his presence
The Supreme Court on Monday granted relief to Union minister Shivraj Singh Chauhan in a criminal defamation case filed by senior lawyer and former Congress leader Vivek K Tankha by allowing him to appear before the trial court through a lawyer after the court concerned in Madhya Pradesh’s Jabaplur issued bailable warrants to secure his presence.
A bench headed by justice Hrishikesh Roy issued notice on Chauhan’s petition and said, “In the meantime, subject to the petitioners’ effective participation with counsel as may be needed, before the concerned court, they need not be subjected to bailable warrants.”
In 2021, Tankha appeared for a petitioner who challenged the Madhya Pradesh government’s decision for holding local body elections in the state without providing for rotation of reserved OBC seats. He secured a stay on the election process. This was commented upon by Chauhan, who was the then chief minister of Madhya Pradesh. Tankha alleged that defamatory statements were made against him as if he was opposed to OBCs when the issue before the court was on rotation of seats.
Chauhan appearing through senior advocates Mahesh Jethmalani and Maninder Singh had said that the trial court had on January 20 this year admitted the defamation case filed against him by Tankha. Against this order, when he approached the Madhya Pradesh high court to quash the entire complaint, his petition was dismissed on October 25. It was against this order the present petition was filed.
Jethmalani said that the action of the court was wrong as the statements attributed to him by media reports in December 2021 related to proceedings in the Madhya Pradesh assembly while he was chief minister, and it enjoyed immunity under Article 194(2) of the Constitution. This provision protects any legislator from any proceedings in court for anything said or any vote given by him in the legislature.
The bench, also comprising justice SVN Bhatti, in a lighthearted remark said, “You have no such situation that if your client remains behind bars, his reputation will be enhanced.” Jethmalani said that the matter is listed before the trial judge on November 18 and if the warrants are not stayed, he has to remain personally present.
Tankha was represented by senior advocate Kapil SIbal and advocate Sumeer Sodhi who said that the status of the accused should not be a consideration to grant stay. However, Sibal was open to the suggestion that a lawyer could represent Chauhan in the proceedings by which the case can go on.
The court posted the matter after four weeks to consider the legal arguments in the matter as Chauhan even sought quashing of the entire complaint.
The petition by Chauhan cited the background of the case that led to filing of the defamation complaint against him. The Panchayat elections in the state were scheduled in 2021. Ahead of the announcement, the state of Madhya Pradesh brought an ordinance in November 2021 that was challenged in the top court by one Manmohan Nagar.
Nagar alleged that the Ordinance was in breach of Article 243-C and 243-D of the Constitution of India and other provisions of the MP Panchayat Raj Eeam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993. Nagar engaged the services of Tankha to argue the case. The petition was limited to the issue that delimitation and rotation in Panchayat elections scheduled in Madhya Pradesh are mandatory in nature as per Article 243-C and 243-D of the Constitution and MP Panchayat Raj Act and the State has to follow the law and cannot undermine the same by way of Ordinance.
In his defamation complaint, Tankha stated that the petition did not relate to the issue of OBC reservation and alleged that the accused persons (including Chauhan) launched a coordinated, malicious, false and defamatory campaign against him through scandalising the proceedings of the Supreme Court and the earlier proceedings in the high court in print and visual media by projecting him as one who is opposed to OBC reservation.