DTC Buses Procurement: High Court Seeks BJP MLA's Stand On Deletion Of Tweets Against Delhi Transport Minister Kailash Gahlot

The Delhi High Court on Tuesday sought the stand of BJP MLA Vijender Gupta on deletion of three allegedly defamatory tweets made by him against Delhi Transport Minister Kailash Gahlot in the defamation suit filed by the latter over procurement of 1,000 low-floor DTC buses.

A division bench of Justice Siddharth Mridul and Justice Talwant Singh asked Gupta's counsel to obtain instructions in the matter and listed the case for hearing next on January 16.

"You take instructions. Your purpose is served now. You'll have to establish before the court of competent jurisdiction. These tweets have served the purpose. Where is the need for us to go in this?," the court told Gupta's counsel.

During the hearing, Gahlot's counsel submitted that the allegations made against the transport minister are scandalous and that while Gupta can criticise Gahlot if he is not happy with the decision, but he has no right to do "character assassination."

The counsel thus requested the court to order deletion of at least three tweets made by Gupta. "Rest we will prove that this is absolutely scandalous during trial," the counsel added.

While issuing notice to Facebook in the matter, Justice Mridul in a lighter vein remarked:

"We are reminded of an anecdote. When Mrs. Gandhi was the Prime Minister, Mr. Natwar Singh was going to sworn in as foreign minister. The evening previous to the day when he was going to be sworn in, he visited the PM and asked her how should he be attired? Reportedly, she said 'because you're appointed as minister, come dressed in a thick skin'."

To this, Gupta's counsel said that the tweets were nothing but a verbatim translation of what was said by the fact finding committee on the issue in question.

"Even if the fact finding committee says so, assuming the committee says so….we're at the stage where you're making allegations. Possibly, there will be registration of FIR, possibly there may be some prosecution for whatever allegations you've made. You'll establish or not establish it at the trial. Why should the tweets remain?" Justice Mridul told Gupta's counsel.

The court was dealing with an appeal filed by the AAP MLA against a single judge order refusing to grant him temporary injunction in the defamation suit in March this year.

Gupta had alleged that Gahlot had committed corruption in awarding the tender for maintenance of DTC buses to Tata Motors and JBM Auto Ltd and was aware of the entire terms and conditions of the tender, however, he chose to object to the said tender only after it was awarded.

It is the case of Gahlot that Gupta, without any justifiable cause or reason, defamed him by posting scandalous and libelous material in the form of tweets, Facebook posts and press releases.

Following this, Gahlot moved the High Court seeking damages from Gupta for allegedly defaming him and causing loss to his reputation. Apart from this, a mandatory injunction was also sought to immediately delete all the defamatory posts made against him on Twitter and Facebook.

About Single Judge Order

Vide order dated March 7, a single judge of Justice Asha Menon noted that Gupta had raised starred questions in the Assembly regarding the tenders, but did not receive sufficient answers.

The Bench had clarified that only if blatant lies and falsehoods, detrimental to public order and morality or adversely affecting the security of the country or national interests are being disseminated through social-media platforms, can there be a restraint imposed as being reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2) of the Constitution.

It was of the opinion that the tone and tenor of the tweets would show that Gupta being a 'public figure' was relentlessly pursuing the Government in respect of the purchase of and grant of an AMC for 1000 buses, in which the independent Committee, constituted by Lt. Governor of Delhi, had also found irregularities and had recommended its cancellation.

Case Title: Kailash Gahlot v. Vijender Gupta & Ors