On Wednesday, the Supreme Court extended its order exempting Union Agriculture Minister Shivraj Singh Chouhan from appearing in person before the trial court in a criminal defamation case filed by Congress MP Vivek Tankha.

Tankha, a senior advocate, has accused Union Minister Shivraj Singh Chouhan, BJP state president V.D. Sharma, and former minister Bhupendra Singh of running a "coordinated, malicious, false, and defamatory" campaign against him for political gain. He claims they falsely accused him of opposing OBC reservation in the 2021 Madhya Pradesh Panchayat elections.

A bench of Justices M.M. Sundresh and Rajesh Bindal postponed the hearing on the plea of Chouhan and two other BJP leaders to March 26.

The Supreme Court was hearing Chouhan's appeal against the Madhya Pradesh High Court's October 25 order, which refused to quash the defamation case.  

Senior advocate Mahesh Jethmalani represented Chouhan, while senior lawyer Kapil Sibal and advocate Sumeer Sodhi appeared for Tankha.  

Earlier, the court had stayed the execution of bailable warrants against the three BJP leaders and sought Tankha's response to their appeal.  

Jethmalani argued that the statements mentioned in Tankha’s complaint were made on the floor of the House and were protected under 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, & 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 argued that issuing a bailable warrant in a summons case was unprecedented, especially when the parties could be represented by their counsel.  

He, therefore, sought a stay on the execution of the warrant. In response, Sibal questioned why the BJP leaders had not appeared before the trial court, asking what course of action the trial court could take if they continued to be absent.  

Jethmalani further stated that the two statements cited as defamatory by Tankha were made on December 22 and 25, 2021, concerning a Supreme Court order that had halted the Panchayat elections in Madhya Pradesh.

In October last year, the high court refused to quash the defamation case filed by Tankha against BJP leaders.

In his complaint before the trial court, Tankha alleged that defamatory remarks were made against him during the 2021 Panchayat election campaign. He claimed that after the Supreme Court’s December 17, 2021, order, BJP leaders falsely accused him of opposing OBC reservation in local body polls, damaging his reputation.

Seeking ₹10 crore in compensation and the initiation of criminal defamation proceedings, Tankha asserted that the three BJP leaders ran a "coordinated, malicious, false, and defamatory" campaign against him for political gain, accusing him of opposing OBC reservation in the Supreme Court.

The BJP leaders refuted the allegations in the high court, arguing that newspaper clippings submitted by Tankha could not serve as the basis for a defamation complaint and that the trial court should not have taken cognizance of the matter. They maintained that the materials on record did not contain any defamatory insinuation as alleged.

On January 20, 2024, a special court in Jabalpur decided to examine the case under Section 500 of the IPC (punishment for defamation) and issued summons to the three BJP leaders.