The Rouse Avenue Court on Tuesday set aside the summons issued to Delhi Chief Minister Atishi Marlena in a defamation case filed by Praveen Shankar Kapoor, the Media Head and Spokesperson of the BJP’s Delhi unit.

The court noted that…"Regardless of status, a complainant, even if a seemingly powerful person as the Chief Minister, deserves protection, at least from prosecution on the specious allegations of defamation," said the court.

Special Judge Vishal Gogne ruled that the allegations in the complaint are better suited for resolution in the political arena rather than the courtroom, emphasizing that such matters align with the nature of political discourse.

"Allegations made by Ms. Atishi regarding poaching of MLAs are as much a part of the right to free political speech as they are an effort to report a specific act of alleged corrupt practice. There is no particular reason for the court to discern hightened sensitivity of an allegation and treat it as defamatory only because it is made against the ruling party of the day," the court noted.

The court further emphasized that political questions should be decided by the electorate through elections, not in courts through defamation proceedings. It also noted that the case lacked merit as no specific individual was identifiable in the complaint. The defamation claim stemmed from Atishi Marlena’s generalized statement alleging that the BJP had attempted to bribe multiple AAP MLAs with ₹25 crore each.

"...‘some person aggrieved’ under section 199 Cr. PC in the context of defamation is not an entitlement arising out of any particular status in law but a perception of the purported ‘some person aggrieved’ based on having been lowered in the estimation of others through the defamatory allegations," the court said, highlighting that a person looking to represent himself as "some aggrieved person" on account of being the member of a political party cannot claim legal status as a member of the political party.

"His efforts to somehow claim legal status as ‘some person aggrieved’ fall abysmally short in the context of the above three powerful circumstances. There is absolutely no defamation of the media head of the BJP if the leader of the AAP accuses the BJP of trying to buy their MLAs with huge sums of money," the court held, while examining the complaint under investigation by the crime branch, filed at behest of Virendra Sachdeva, the Delhi BJP President.

The Rouse Avenue Court on Tuesday set aside the summons issued to Delhi Chief Minister Atishi Marlena in a defamation case filed by Praveen Shankar Kapoor, Media Head and Spokesperson of the BJP’s Delhi unit.

Special Judge Vishal Gogne ruled that the allegations in the complaint were better suited for resolution in the political arena rather than the courtroom, emphasizing that political discourse should be addressed through elections, not litigation. The court further noted that no identifiable individual had been defamed, as Marlena's statement broadly alleged that the BJP attempted to bribe multiple AAP MLAs with ₹25 crore each.

Kapoor had filed the complaint in August 2022, alleging that AAP leaders had falsely accused the BJP of attempting to bribe its MLAs to defect, in an effort to divert attention from the excise policy scam case. The complaint referenced statements made by AAP leaders, including Sanjay Singh, and highlighted Arvind Kejriwal’s social media posts in January 2024, which, according to Kapoor, portrayed him as a victim of political vendetta. The complaint further alleged that Marlena had amplified such claims through a defamatory press conference, leading to her being summoned by the trial court. She subsequently challenged the summoning order before the revision court.

The court found that Kapoor failed to provide independent witnesses or public testimony to support his claims, relying instead on hearsay and his own statement. It held that this lack of substantial evidence weakened the defamation case. Additionally, the allegations against Kejriwal were deemed too vague and insufficiently detailed to warrant legal action.

Further, the court held that Kapoor did not qualify as a “person aggrieved” under Section 199 of the Cr.P.C. It questioned whether the BJP’s Media Head was directly perceived by the public as the target of Marlena’s allegations and found that the complaint failed to establish any significant link between Kapoor and the bribery claims, rendering the defamation charges arbitrary.

In considering the broader implications of the case, the court noted that Atishi's statements had drawn attention to allegations of MLA poaching, warranting further investigation. It observed that her role in highlighting potential corruption aligned with the responsibilities of a whistleblower rather than constituting defamation.

The court also underscored the constitutional protection of political speech, emphasizing that allegations of corruption form a legitimate part of democratic discourse. It cautioned against the misuse of defamation suits to suppress political debate and criticism. Highlighting the BJP’s role as the ruling national party, the court remarked that it must “necessarily project broad shoulders in accepting an alternative political narrative,” as such responsibility accompanies the privileges of governance.

Ultimately, the court found that Kapoor’s defamation claim failed to meet the high threshold required in cases involving political speech. Citing precedents from the Supreme Court’s rulings in Khushboo, Arvind Kejriwal (30.09.2024), and Shashi Tharoor (10.09.2024), the court held that the allegations lacked sufficient legal grounds, leading to the quashing of the summoning order against Marlena.

The court outlined that, “The complaint by Mr. Praveen Shankar Kapoor is an attempt to defeat criminal investigation and supress the freedom of speech as well as the right to know”. Thus, the court allowed the revision petition and quashed the summoning order. 

Case Title (download judgment): Atishi Marlena v Praveen Shankar Kapoor