 | « Back to article | Print this article |
In a relief to Union Agriculture Minister Shivraj Singh Chouhan and two other Bharatiya Janata Party leaders of Madhya Pradesh, the Supreme Court on Monday stayed the execution of bailable warrants against them in a defamation case filed by Congress Rajya Sabha MP Vivek Tankha.
A bench of Justices Hrishikesh Roy and SV N Bhatti sought Tankha's response in four weeks on the plea of Chouhan and BJP state president VD Sharma and former minister Bhupendra Singh who have challenged the October 25 order of the Madhya Pradesh high court refusing to quash the defamation case.
The bench said, "In the meantime, subject to the petitioner's effective participation with counsel as may be needed, before the court concerned, they need not be subjected to bailable warrants."
Senior advocate Mahesh Jethmalani, appearing for Chouhan and others, said the purported statements mentioned in the complaint by Tankha were made on the floor of the house and were covered by Article 194(2) of the Constitution.
Article 194 (2) states, "No member of the Legislature of a State shall be liable to any proceedings in any court in respect of anything said or any vote given by him in the Legislature or any committee thereof, and no person shall be so liable in respect of the publication by or under the authority of a House of such a Legislature of any report, paper, votes or proceedings."
Jethmalani submitted it was unheard of that in a summons case, a bailable warrant was issued by the court, when the parties could appear through their counsel. He therefore sought a stay on the execution of a bailable warrant.
Senior advocate Kapil Sibal and advocate Sumeer Sodhi, appearing for Tankha said they should have appeared before the trial court in the case, asking what would the trial court do, if they did not appear before it.
Jethmalani said the two statements alleged to be defamatory by the complainant (Tankha) were of December 22 and 25, respectively, in 2021 in a matter related to an apex court order staying the Panchayat elections in the state.
"This court (on December 17, 2021) stayed the Panchayat election on the ground that there was no rotation and no delimitation done," he said, adding there was nothing uttered about OBC reservation as alleged by Tankha.
On October 25, the high court had refused to quash the defamation case lodged by Tankha against former Madhya Pradesh CM Chouhan, BJP state president VD Sharma (now member of Parliament) and former minister Bhupendra Singh (MLA in MP assembly).
Tankha, in his complaint in the trial court, said defamatory statements were made in the run-up to Panchayat elections in the state in 2021.
He alleged that following the December 17, 2021 order of the apex court it was alleged by the BJP leaders that he had opposed the reservation for OBC community in the local body polls which caused damage to his reputation.
Tankha's plea sought Rs 10 crore compensation and initiation of criminal defamation proceedings against the BJP leaders.
The complaint further said the three BJP functionaries carried out a "coordinated, malicious, false and defamatory" campaign against him for political mileage, accusing him of opposing OBC reservation in the Panchayat election in the Supreme Court.
The BJP leaders refuted the charges in the high court and contended that newspaper clippings annexed by Tankha, cannot become the basis of a defamation complaint and the trial court could not have taken its coginsance.
They said the entire material placed on record by Tankha did not suggest any insinuation, let alone defamation, as alleged.
"Pertinently, since respondent (Tankha) was not only appearing on behalf of petitioner/applicant in the said SLP (2021 case) but was/is also a member of parliament, Raja Sabha from Madhya Pradesh, his part was bound to be discussed and analysed by the public of state of Madhya Pradesh and also by the representatives of public such as petitioners herein," Chouhan's plea said.
It further said, "In this context, consequentially alleged statements were made by the petitioners to apprise the general public as to what had transpired at the hearing before this court on December 17, 2021. Alleged statements were made in good faith without imputing any personal harm to the reputation of the respondent and are thus covered by the exceptions to section 499 of the IPC."
The BJP leaders contended all of them were holding a public office at the time of incident and the trial court erred in taking cognisance of the complaint without a prior sanction of the competent authority.
On January 20, 2024, a special court in Jabalpur agreed to examine the defamation case against the three BJP leaders under Section 500 of IPC and summoned them.