A high-stakes defamation case involving prominent figures Arvind Kejriwal and Atishi of the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) has taken another turn as the Supreme Court of India intervened, staying the proceedings against them on September 30, 2024. The case centers around allegations made by the pair against the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) concerning the deletion of voters' names from electoral rolls during the 2018 elections.
The Supreme Court's decision came after the case, originally filed by BJP leader Rajiv Babbar, had faced multiple delays and legal challenges. This latest order, handed down by Justice Hrishikesh Roy and Justice SVN Bhatti, indicated a necessary examination of whether political parties can present themselves as 'aggrieved persons' in defamation suits. “The threshold for criminal defamation should be higher for political discourse,” said Justice Roy, emphasizing the need for careful consideration of freedom of speech within the political framework.
The lawsuit accused Kejriwal and Atishi of harming the BJP's reputation during comments they made about the deletion of around 30 lakh voters from the rolls. These remarks suggested the BJP orchestrated this deletion with the intent to manipulate the electoral process. Babbar claimed these allegations were unfounded and lacked evidence, prompting his legal complaint.
On its part, the Delhi High Court had previously ruled against the appeal made by Kejriwal and Atishi, allowing the trial court’s summoning orders to stand which initiated this case. The High Court stated: "The imputations in the present case are prima facie defamatory, with the intention of vilifying BJP and gaining undue political mileage."
Atishi sought to challenge the High Court’s decision, filing her application before Additional Sessions Judge Vishal Gogne. During this judicial review, Gogne issued notice to Babbar, requiring him to respond to Atishi’s plea by October 7, 2024. Following this, both Kejriwal and Atishi filed petitions with the Supreme Court challenging the dismissal of their plea against the High Court's order, arguing their statements were not directed against Babbar personally but were made during legitimate political discourse.
The case and its adjacent political undertones have grabbed widespread media attention, not merely for the high-profile nature of the accused but also for the legal principles involved related to defamation and freedom of speech within politics. This tension between political statements and their potential legal repercussions is particularly pronounced when political entities find their reputations at stake.
The political climate surrounding this case is charged; the AAP has long accused the BJP of attempting to undermine its governance through various means, including these alleged financial inducements to AAP MLAS which Atishi publicly disclosed. She claimed during press briefings, “Up to 21 AAP MLAS were approached with offers of ₹25 lakhs each to switch loyalty to the BJP.”
Given the serious accusations against the BJP, it is no surprise Babbar felt compelled to respond through legal channels, asserting his innocence and the party's respectability, marking this case as not just about personal defamation but more broadly about political integrity and accountability.
The Supreme Court has now paused the trial’s progress, which allows both Kejriwal and Atishi some breathing room as they prepare their defenses and frame their arguments for the next stages of the proceedings. This judicial pause brings to the forefront the serious examination needed of the law surrounding political speech and defamation, spotlighting the fine line political figures must navigate when expressing claims publicly.
This legal saga is likely to continue making headlines as the parties involved prepare for their next court appearances and as the legal arguments evolve, reflecting the increasingly complex intersection of law and politics within India's vibrant democratic environment.
