Today, the Supreme Court further prolonged the suspension of defamation proceedings against Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal. This action stemmed from his retweet of a video by Youtuber Dhruv Rathee, wherein certain allegations were made against the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) IT Cell.

Upon a request by Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing Kejriwal, the Bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta adjourned the matter. Singhvi stated that following the previous hearing, the parties were unable to establish contact to discuss a potential settlement.

In response, the court granted additional time for the parties to pursue a settlement, emphasizing, "they (Kejriwal's lawyers) will do the needful, today itself they will get in touch." Advocate Raghav Awasthi represented the complainant in the proceedings.

The matter was posted to August 12, with directions for "interim order to continue".

To summarize, the current proceedings were initiated by Kejriwal in response to a defamation case filed against him. This case stemmed from his retweet of a video on the social media platform 'X,' which contained certain allegations concerning the BJP IT Cell.

Initially, Kejriwal sought relief from the Delhi High Court against the summons issued in the case. However, the High Court declined to quash the summons. Dissatisfied with this decision, the Delhi CM then turned to the Supreme Court for further recourse.

On February 26, 2024, Singhvi conveyed that Kejriwal was prepared to acknowledge that the retweet was an error. Consequently, the Supreme Court granted time to the complainant to consider whether they were willing to close the case. Meanwhile, the trial court was directed not to proceed with the matter.

When the case was last addressed in March, the bench, while extending the stay on trial proceedings, proposed that the complainant provide a format for the apology they sought from Kejriwal on public platforms. If this format was acceptable to the complainant, it would lead to the resolution of the matter. However, it was emphasized that if the parties failed to reach a resolution in this manner, the legal question of whether retweeting constitutes a criminal offense would be addressed and decided upon.