Defamation case: SC exempts Shivraj Chouhan from personal appearance

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.