PM Modi Degree Defamation Case | High Court Issues Notice To Gujarat Varsity On Arvind Kejriwal Plea Against Summons, No Stay On Proceedings

The Gujarat High Court today refused to stay the Defamation case proceedings against Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal and Aam Aadmi Party's Rajya Sabha MP Sanjay Singh (pending in a Court in Ahmedabad) in their revision plea filed in connection with Prime Minister Narendra Modi's Academic degree.

For context, both AAP leaders have moved the High Court seeking quashing of a summons issued by a Magistrate Court (Ahmedabad) in the defamation complaint against them over their alleged comments 'targeting' the Gujarat University seeking the educational degree of PM Modi. They have also challenged the September 2023 sessions court order which upheld the summons issued to them.

Refusing to grant any interim relief by way of staying case proceedings, a bench of Justice JC Doshi today also issued a notice to the Gujarat University and adjourned the hearing in the matter to November 3.

Appearing virtually for Kejriwal and Singh, Senior Advocate Rebecca John took the Court through the allegations against the AAP Leaders as well as their alleged statements. However, when she raised the point that Gujarat University falls under the definition of the State under Article 12 of the Constitution, the Bench said that it is admitting the matter and issuing notice to Gujarat University.

To this, Senior Advocate John urged the Court to stay the defamation case proceedings till the petitions by Kejriwal and Singh were decided, however, the bench was not inclined to accede to her prayer. Instead, the bench asked the parties to seek an adjournment before the trial court as you have been doing since April when the summons was first issued.

Further, when Assisting Counsel Aum Kotwal requested the bench to mention in its order that if they move an application for adjournment before the Metropolitan Magistrate, the same may be considered, the bench remarked that the parties can tell the trial court that they have moved the High Court and if the other side pressurises them for a hearing, they can move the High Court. With this, the bench adjourned the matter. 

Background of the complaint 

In the criminal defamation complaint, the University’s Registrar Dr Piyush M.Patel has alleged that Kejriwal and Singh had made sarcastic and defamatory statements in press conferences and on Twitter handles targeting the university over Modi's degree.

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

The complaint states that the alleged statement was made by Kejriwal right after the Gujarat High Court’s order of quashing and setting aside the 2016 order of the Central Information Commission (CIC) directing the Gujarat University to provide “information regarding degrees in the name of Mr Narendra Damodar Modi" to Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal.

The Complaint further states that immediately after the Gujarat High Court's order, Kejriwal made defamatory statements against Gujarat University in a press conference despite being aware of the fact that the Prime Minister's degree had been published on the University's website long back. However, it is Delhi CM’s contention that the original degree is not available on the University’s website.

Notably, the university has also contended in its complaint that CM Kejriwal made the statements in his “personal capacity” and “not affairs of the State”.

In April this year, the additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Jayeshbhai Chovatiya found that prima facie, both Kejriwal and Singh appeared to have targeted the Gujarat University as the words uttered by them were sarcastic and meant to target the Gujarat University's image in the minds of the people.

The Court also opined that if the political office bearers, instead of fulfilling their duty to their people, do any work directly or indirectly for their personal enmity or selfishness, to harm the opponents or the same person, and if they utter any such words, those words will be considered a violation of the trust placed by the people and the words uttered will be considered personal.

It is in that order that the Court directed their personal presence before the Court by issuing them summons.