The Supreme Court on Wednesday extended its earlier
order exempting Union Agriculture Minister Shivraj Singh Chouhan from personal
appearance before a trial court in connection with a criminal defamation case
lodged against him by Congress MP Vivek Tankha.
Tankha, also a senior advocate, has alleged that the
union minister and BJP state president V D Sharma and former minister Bhupendra
Singh carried out a "coordinated, malicious, false and defamatory"
campaign against him for political mileage, accusing him of opposing OBC
reservation in the 2021 Panchayat election in Madhya Pradesh.
A bench comprising Justices MM Sundresh and Rajesh
Bindal deferred to March 26 the hearing on a plea of Chouhan and two other BJP
leaders.
The top court was hearing the appeal of Chouhan
against the October 25 order of the Madhya Pradesh High Court refusing to quash
the defamation case.
While Chouhan was represented by senior advocate
Mahesh Jethmalani, Tankha was represented by senior lawyer Kapil Sibal and
advocate Sumeer Sodhi.
Earlier, the top court had stayed the execution of
bailable warrants against the three BJP leaders in the defamation case.
It had sought Tankha's response on the appeal of
Chouhan and other BJP leaders.
Jethmalani had 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. Sibal had 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 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.
On October 25, the high court had refused to quash
the defamation case lodged by Tankha against the BJP leaders.
Tankha, in his complaint in the trial court, had
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 cognisance.
They said the entire material placed on record by
Tankha did not suggest any insinuation, let alone defamation, as alleged.
On January 20, 2024, a special court in Jabalpur
agreed to examine the defamation case against the three BJP leaders under
Section 500 (punishment for defamation) of the IPC and summoned them.