New Delhi, Sep 27 (UNI) The Supreme Court on Friday deferred till September 30 the hearing on Aam Aadmi Party leader Arvind Kejriwal and Chief Minister Atishi’s plea challenging the Delhi High Court’s refusal to quash a defamation case filed against the two by BJP leader Rajiv Babbar.
Kejriwal, the then Chief Minister of Delhi, had made remarks against BJP that it had allegedly deleted names of certain communities from the voters’ list in 2018.
A bench comprising Justice Hrishikesh Roy and Justice SVN Bhatti deferred the matter to September 30 after Babbar sought more time for preparation, claiming that he got the notice on Thursday night only Advocate Sonia Mathur, appearing for Babbar, “We discovered by chance. I have been exposed to unfair treatment, despite being a caveator.”
The Bench re-listed the matter on Monday, September 30, taking into account the respondent’s statement that a caveat was already filed in this case.
Kejriwal had said that the BJP was responsible for removing a total of 30 lakh names of electors from the Delhi electoral rolls, with the people mainly belonging to the ‘Baniya’, Muslim and other communities.
Babbar filed a defamation suit against Kejriwal and other Aam Aadmi Party leaders, naming Sushil Kumar Gupta, Atishi and Manoj Kumar.
The BJP leader claimed that the statements made by AAP leaders had damaged the party’s reputation by targeting specific voter groups, including Bania, Poorvanchalis, and Muslims, resulting in irreparable loss to the party.
The trial court, in February 2020 observed that the allegations made by Kejriwal and others are prima facie defamatory and refer to the BJP.
Kejriwal then moved the Delhi High Court in 2020 saying that the defamation complaint was not maintainable, as it is vague and does not disclose who is the “person aggrieved” whose image has been tarnished.
The High Court had on September 2 refused to dismiss defamation proceedings against Kejriwal and others.
The AAP leaders had approached the Supreme Court against the High Court order and quashing of two orders – one of the March 15, 2019 by a Magistrate’s court and the other of January 28, 2020 by a sessions court.
