The Supreme Court exempts Shivraj Singh Chouhan from personal appearance in case of defamation

The Supreme Court extended its previous order on Wednesday that exempt the Minister of Agriculture of the Union, Shivraj Singh Chouhan, of a personal appearance before a court of first instance in relation to a case of criminal defamation presented against him by the deputy of the Congress Vivek Tankha.

Tankha, also the main defender, alleged that the Minister of the Union and the state president of BJP, VD Sharma, and former Minister Bhupendra Singh, carried out a “coordinated, malicious, false and defamatory” campaign against him for the political thousand, accusing him of the OPC reserve opposite in the 2021 Panchayat elections in Madhya Pradesh.

A bank that comprises the Judges MM Sundesh and Rajesh Bindal postponed on March 26 of the hearing about a Chouhan supplication and two other BJP leaders.

Read more: The Supreme Court will listen to the challenging appointment of CEC, ECS under Law 2023 on April 16

The Superior Court was listening to Chouhan’s appeal against the order of October 25 of the Superior Court of Madhya Pradesh that refused to cancel the defamation case.

While Chouhan was represented by the main lawyer Mahesh Jethmalani, Tankha was represented by Senior Kapil Sibal lawyer and Sumeer Sodhi’s defender.

Previously, the Superior Court had maintained the execution of bail orders against the three BJP leaders in the case of defamation.

He had sought Tankha’s response about Chouhan’s appeal and other BJP leaders.

Read more: Supreme Court to listen to the case of Suo Motu about Lokpal’s order on complaints against HC judges on April 15

Jethmalani had said that the alleged statements mentioned in Tankha’s complaint were made on the floor of the house and were covered by article 194 (2) of the Constitution.

Article 194 (2) establishes: “No member of the legislature of a State will be responsible before any procedure in any court with respect to anything that says or any vote granted by him in the legislature or no committee of the same, and no person will be so responsible with respect to the publication by or under the authority of a chamber of said legislature of any report, document, votes or procedures.”

Jethmalani presented that it was unheard of that in a case of call, the court issued a bail order for the court, when the parties could appear through their lawyer.

He, therefore, sought a stay in the execution of a fixing order. Sibal had said that they should have appeared before the Court of First Instance in the case, asking what the Court of First Instance would do, if they did not appear before.

Read more: Folding to change the name of India as Bharat: Delhi Hight Court asks the center to comply with the order of the Supreme Court

Jethmalani said that the two statements that were allegedly defamatory by the plaintiff Tankha were of December 22 and 25, respectively, in 2021 in an issue related to an Apex court order that remained in the Panchayat elections in the state.

On October 25, the Superior Court had refused to cancel the defamation case housed by Tankha against BJP leaders.

Tankha, in his complaint in the court of first instance, had said that defamatory statements were made in the period prior to Panchayat elections in the state in 2021.

He claimed that after the order of the Apex court of December 17, 2021, BJP leaders alleged that he had opposed the reserve for the OBC community in the local body surveys that caused damage to his reputation.

Read more: RG KAR Case of murder of rape: the Supreme Court asks the victim’s parents to feel in Calcuta HC for additional investigation

Tankha’s plea ₹10 million million rupees and start of criminal defamation procedures against BJP leaders.

The complaint also said that the three BJP officials carried out a “coordinated, malicious, false and defamatory” campaign against him for the political mileage, accusing him of opposing the OBC reserve in the Panchayat elections in the Supreme Court.

BJP leaders refuted the charges in the Superior Court and argued that the newspaper cuts attached to Tankha cannot become the base of a complaint of defamation and the Court of First Instance could not have taken their knowledge.

Read more: Case of the Earth for the works: Ed summons Lalu Prasad, Raise Devi and Pratap fabric to interrogate

They said that all the material recorded by Tankha did not suggest any insinuation, much less defamation, as it is alleged.

On January 20, 2024, a Special Court in Jabalpur agreed to examine the defamation case against the three BJP leaders under section 500 (defamation punishment) of the CPI and convened them.