Today, the Gujarat High Court rejected the petitions filed by Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal and his party's Rajyasabha MP Sanjay Singh. These petitions challenged a Sessions Court's decision upholding summons issued against them by a Magistrate Court in a defamation case filed by Gujarat University regarding Prime Minister Narendra Modi's educational degree.

On February 2, a bench headed by Justice Hasmukh D. Suthar reserved its verdict after listening to arguments from both parties in the pleas.

Four days after a Sessions Court in Ahmedabad, Gujarat, dismissed a revision application filed by the duo, Arvind Kejriwal and Sanjay Singh, they approached the High Court in September last year. Their appeal to the High Court also highlights concerns regarding the complaint having a chilling effect on the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression.

It may be noted that the alleged comments (reproduced in the later part of this article) were made by Kejriwal at a press conference on April 1, 2023, and Singh allegedly made the utterances at a second press conference conducted on April 2, 2023. Thereafter, the Gujarat University filed a criminal defamation complaint against them before a magistrate court in Ahmedabad.

Gujarat University, represented by its Registrar Dr. Piyush M. Patel, filed a criminal complaint under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code. The complaint referenced the purported statements made by Kejriwal and Singh, accusing them of making sarcastic and defamatory remarks during press conferences and on their Twitter handles, specifically targeting the university over Modi's degree. Subsequently, they were issued summons to appear before the court in response to the complaint.

In their appeal before the High Court, Kejriwal argued that the alleged defamatory comments were made by him during a press conference where he raised an important issue regarding the Prime Minister of India's degree. He contended that by doing so, he fulfilled his duty of informing the people of India about the necessity of having educated and qualified individuals hold constitutional positions, including that of the Prime Minister. Therefore, he asserted that his statements could not be construed as defamatory.

In his appeal, Kejriwal further argued that upon a simple examination of the purported statements, they do not contain any elements that would warrant the initiation and continuation of a trial against him under Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code. He asserted that his statements were simple, innocuous, and straightforward, typical of political discourse aimed at raising awareness among the people of India. Therefore, he contended that there were no grounds for pursuing a trial against him.

The appeal strongly argued that neither convening the press conference nor seeking the degree of the Honorable Prime Minister of India could be classified as defamatory statements.

It was also contended in his plea that the Court grossly erred in passing the impugned summoning orders as it failed to note that only the person 'aggrieved' has the locus to initiate and institute a defamation case. In the present case, the Gujarat University, being an instrumentality of the state, cannot be considered an aggrieved person.

The appeal further added that a government institution cannot file and maintain a criminal defamation complaint. Even if it is not considered a state entity, the complaint cannot be sustained because the University is an unidentifiable and indeterminate body, and therefore cannot be considered as a class under Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code.

The appeal also submitted that no proper inquiry under Section 202 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) was conducted before the Court to demonstrate how the respondent was defamed in the estimation of others. Additionally, it highlighted that the witnesses produced during the inquiry were employees of Gujarat University itself, raising concerns about their impartiality and credibility.

Last month, the Supreme Court stayed the criminal defamation proceedings against Kejriwal and Singh. While the Bench of Justices BR Gavai and Sandeep Mehta declined to entertain Singh's plea to transfer the case out of Gujarat at the present stage, they left the decision regarding granting interim relief to be determined by the Gujarat High Court within four weeks. Consequently, the defamation case before the trial Court was put on hold until further notice.