ALSO READCourt reserves order on The Wire's plea against gag order Court lifts stay on 'The Wire' story on Amit Shah's son HC reserves order on The Wire's plea against defamation case Jay Shah case: Court partly allows portal's plea against gag Electoral bonds will curb graft in political funding: Amit Shah
The Gujarat High Court today rejected a petition filed by news portal 'The Wire' seeking quashing of a criminal defamation case filed against it by BJP president Amit Shah's son Jay over an article related to his company.
The HC, which had earlier directed the trial court to complete the hearing in the case in six months, today withdrew that order.
This means there is no time-frame for the trial court to complete the hearing.
The petitioners had maintained the article was a part of investigative journalism and filing a criminal defamation suit against it was against the freedom of the press.
Jay Shah's lawyer S V Raju, on the other hand, had maintained the article was "defamatory" and the two witnesses examined by the lower court had established that the reputation of his client was tarnished due to its publication.
Jay Shah had moved the lower court alleging criminal defamation by the petitioners after the article published by the website claimed his company's turnover grew exponentially after the BJP-led government came to power at the Centre in 2014.
After the suit was filed on October 9 last year, the court initiated proceedings against them under the CrPC section 202 (to inquire into a case to decide whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding).
The suit has been filed against the author of the article Rohini Singh, founding editors of the news portal Siddharth Varadarajan, Siddharth Bhatia and M K Venu, managing editor Monobina Gupta, public editor Pamela Philipose and the Foundation for Independent Journalism.
The foundation publishes 'The Wire'.
With the quashing of the plea, the matter is expected to come up for hearing in the lower court tomorrow.
Jay Shah had rejected the charge made in the article, insisting the story was "false, derogatory and defamatory".
(This story has not been edited by Business Standard staff and is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)