A Delhi court has quashed the summons issued by an Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (ACMM) in May last year against Delhi Chief Minister and Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader Atishi in connection with a defamation complaint filed by a Bharatiya Janta Party leader.
BJP leader Praveen Shankar Kapoor had filed a complaint accusing the AAP leaders of defamation over statements that BJP was approaching the AAP MLAs and offering them bribes for switching sides.
Special Judge (MP/MLA cases) Vishal Gogne of Rouse Avenue Court observed on Tuesday that the order passed by the ACMM on May 28, 2024, suffered from material error and infirmity.
He said a court of law could not 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.
Special Judge (MP/MLA cases) Gogne advised BJP to project broad shoulders in accepting an alternative political narrative. He said a big voice could not 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 accompanied the privilege of being the ruling party, added the judge.
The court noted that the pre-summoning evidence in the complaint did not present adequate grounds to summon Atishi as an accused.
Speaking about the allegations made by Atishi through the tweet and press conferences, the court said they were in the nature of disclosing the commission of a criminal offence and merit investigation. Calling Atishi a whistle-blower, the court said she could not be treated as having acted to defame the BJP.
Noting that the allegations made by Atishi constituted the exercise of the right to freedom of speech concerning political corruption, the court said the same did not constitute defamation under Section 500 IPC.
The allegations made by Atishi further activated the right to know as a part of the right to vote of the citizens, as recognised in the Electoral Bonds case and other decisions by the Supreme Court, noted the court.
Further, the allegations were in the nature of a 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.
The court observed that in case these allegations carried the weight of evidence, it would be for the investigation authorities to examine them.
The judge said in the alternative, the allegations of a political nature were 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’, he added.
The court said the complaint filed by Kapoor was reflective of a cloak and dagger approach as BJP members wanted to initiate criminal investigation into the allegations of horse trading made by Atishi and have simultaneously sought to prosecute her for defamation over these very allegations.
The judge further said that even a seemingly powerful person as the Chief Minister deserved protection, at least from prosecution on the specious allegations of defamation.
Noting that the right of the citizen to gain information about the veracity of such allegations was accentuated when the alleged poacher was a wealthy political outfit and the purported prey was a fledging party, the court said any action, even by way of a complaint under Section 500 IPC, which essentially sought to muzzle and tarnish the whistle-blower would necessarily be curtailing the right of the citizen to know about the details of investigation into the allegations.
Terming the complaint by the BJP leader as an attempt to defeat criminal probe and suppress free speech, the court said while such tactics may be part and parcel of political strategy, a court of law could not be a party to the creation of a chilling effect on the freedom of speech by admitting or acting upon such efforts to silence whistle-blowers or smaller political opponents.
Summoning Atishi for the offence of defamation in the present allegations would be suppressive of the freedom of speech and the accountability of public office, it added.
The Court 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 money power and the threat to unleash investigation agencies.
It observed that propagating such a narrative was also a part of the freedom of political speech of the smaller party.
The allegations made by Atishi were part of the freedom of political speech. Such utterances encompassed a wide variety of criticism, allegations and insinuations commonly made by political parties, activists or even citizens against other political formations, added the court.
The Special Judge said political questions must be answered by the court of people through elections and not the courts of law through discussions on defamation.
The post BJP vs AAP: Delhi court quashes summons against Delhi CM Atishi in defamation case appeared first on India Legal.