On Wednesday, a Delhi court rejected the appeal lodged by ex-Rajasthan Chief Minister Ashok Gehlot regarding his summoning in a criminal defamation case filed by Union Minister Gajendra Singh Shekhawat.

Additional Sessions Judge M K Nagpal turned down Ashok Gehlot's appeal, which was lodged against a decision made by a magisterial court, stating that the initial order showed no factual errors, legal issues, or improper conclusions.

"It is held that even the impugned order dated July 6, 2023 passed by the ACMM in the above criminal complaint does not suffer from any factual mistake or illegality or impropriety of finding etc," the judge said.

The judge acknowledged Senior Advocate Vikas Pahwa's statement, representing the complainant, during the summoning of the accused. The judge highlighted that the magisterial court wasn't obligated to delve into an extensive discussion or assessment of the accuracy or admissibility of evidence at that stage. Such determinations are typically reserved for the conclusion of the trial, based on the evidence presented during the proceedings.

Mr. Shekhawat, in his complaint, asserted that Ashok Gehlot had allegedly defamed him publicly through press conferences, media coverage, and social media posts. Gehlot was accused of linking Shekhawat to the Sanjivani scam within the state.

Previously, the judge declined to halt the proceedings in the complaint but granted Ashok Gehlot permission to attend before a metropolitan magistrate via video conference. ACMM Harjeet Singh Jaspal is presiding over the case regarding Union Minister and senior Rajasthan BJP leader Mr. Shekhawat's complaint concerning Ashok Gehlot's purported remarks connecting him to the Sanjivani scam within the state.

The case revolves around the alleged swindling of approximately ₹900 crore from thousands of investors by the Sanjivani Credit Cooperative Society. Mr Shekhawat, the Union Jal Shakti Minister and MP from Jodhpur, has alleged in his complaint before the metropolitan magistrate that Ashok Gehlot has been making defamatory remarks against him over the alleged scam and trying to tarnish his image and affect his political career.

The magisterial court previously stated that, on initial examination, the accused had seemingly made defamatory insinuations against the complainant with the apparent knowledge and intention to damage his reputation.