The Gujarat High Court on Friday reserved its order in the petitions filed by Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal and his party's MP Sanjay Singh, both challenging the decision of a Sessions Court which had upheld the summons issued against the duo in a defamation case filed against them by the Gujarat University [Sanjay Singh vs Gujarat University].Single-judge Justice Hasmukh Suthar reserved the order after hearing Senior Advocates Rebecca John and Nirupam Nanavaty who were representing Arvind Kejriwal and Gujarat University respectively. The defamation complaint against Kejriwal and Singh was filed by Gujarat University which alleged that the two politicians made "defamatory" statements against it for not disclosing the degree of Prime Minister Modi. Appearing for both Kejriwal and Singh, John argued that the University cannot file a complaint of defamation against the accused because the statement alleged to be defamatory was made against someone else."Statements aren't against the University and also aren't defamatory. It is against someone else. Statements do not state that University gave out a forged or duplicate degree. The target audience is someone else. I am not getting into right wrong moral immoral statement because this is a legal proceeding," John argued. The accused nowhere said that the university forged the degree, John underscored."How there has been any defamatory imputation against the university. Both my clients have not said that the university has forged the degree. The context is not the university. Nowhere have the two men said that University has forged the degree or has given a farzi degree. There was no intent to defame the university at all," John contended.Even on a plain reading of the complaint made by the university, no allegations justifying Sections 499 (defamation) and 500 (punishment for defamation) are made out, she said.The defamation case arose after Gujarat High Court had ruled in March 2023 that the Prime Minister's Office (PMO) need not furnish the degree and post-graduate degree certificate of Prime Minister Narendra Modi under the Right to Information Act (RTI Act).Single-judge Justice Biren Vaishnav set aside the order of the Chief Information Commission (CIC) directing the public information officer (PIO) of PMO and the PIOs of Gujarat University and Delhi University to furnish details of Modi's graduate and post-graduate degrees. Pertinently, the High Court imposed costs of ₹25,000 on Arvind Kejriwal as well.In December 2023, Kejriwal filed an appeal challenging the single-judge's decision before a division bench of the High Court. This appeal is still pending before the High Court.Meanwhile, the Gujarat University filed a defamation complaint alleging that the two politicians made "defamatory" statements against it for not disclosing the degree of Prime Minister Modi. A magistrate summoned them to face trial in this defamation case in April last year and the same was upheld by the sessions court.The High Court in August last year refused to grant an interim stay on these proceedings, which was upheld by the Supreme Court as well.Hearing today
John today argued that the University comes within the purview of 'State' as defined under Article 12 of the Constitution of India and thus, the varsity cannot file a complaint like this and that there is a separate procedure under the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) which allows only a public prosecutor to lodge a complaint on behalf of public servants or State instrumentalities.
As far as Singh is concerned, John pointed out that he never uploaded the video of his alleged defamatory statements on his X (earlier Twitter) handle
"Yet the complainant has claimed that it downloaded the video from my client's handle and has stored it in a pen drive and submitted before the Magistrate. It is my contention that the Magistrate hasn't conducted an enquiry and this has caused miscarriage of justice. It was incumbent upon the complainant to bring someone from Twitter to prove that the video was uploaded. The Magistrate failed in its duty prescribed under Section 202 (conduct an enquiry on a plaint) of the CrPC," John submitted.
John further said that the video in the pen drive on which the Magistrate has relied to issue the summons, is not a primary evidence but a secondary one and thus is invalid and cannot be relied upon.
Further the senior advocate pointed out that the complainant, in order to support its case, examined witnesses who are none but the employees of the University.
TAGS: Gujarat High Court defamation case Arvind Kejriwal Sanjay Singh Gujarat University Sessions Cour
