Political Party Can't Sponsor Print Media For Political Purposes To Make Defamatory Imputations Against Rivals: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has observed that a political party cannot be permitted to sponsor the print media for political purposes to make false and defamatory imputations on rival parties.

“Under the constitutional scheme, the citizens have a right to know the truthful and correct information, in order to form appropriate opinion about the social processes. However, at the same time, a political party cannot be permitted to sponsor the print media for political purpose, thereby stinging mud and making mischievous, false and defamatory imputations on the rival political parties,” Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta said.

The court said that misleading and false information in a political arena is likely to sway public opinion and may give an uncalled-for political advantage.

“In view of above, imputations or statements should have a factual foundation and should not be used to discredit other political parties and spread a negative image, which may be damaging to the reputation of the concerned party,” the court said.

The observations were made while refusing to quash a defamation case filed by BJP leader Rajeev Babbar against Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal and other Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leaders for their remarks over the alleged deletion of voters' names from electoral rolls in the national capital in 2018.

The complaint was moved by BJP leader Rajeev Babbar against Kejriwal, Sushil Kumar Gupta, Manoj Kumar and Atishi Marlena.

Babbar sought action against Kejriwal and AAP leaders for "harming" the reputation of Bhartiya Janata Party (BJP) by blaming it for the deletion of the names of voters from electoral rolls.

He had claimed that the AAP leaders, during a press conference in December 2018, alleged that at the directions of the BJP, names of 30 lakh voters from Bania, Poorvanchali and the Muslim community had been deleted by the Election Commission of India.

Refusing to quash the case, the court observed that defamation should not be permitted to be used to stifle criticism or accountability of any government organization or political party.

It added that a fear of "defamation‟ should not be permitted to "censorship‟ which may be antithetical to any democracy.

Observing that citizens and parties should be free to express their honest opinions without any fear of retribution, being dragged in litigation, the court added:

“However, at the same time it needs to be kept in perspective that reputation is a prized attribute of any individual and entity, and also stands protected under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.”

The court said that prima facie, the tweets and press conferences done by Kejriwal and AAP leaders were malicious and defamatory to BJP and specifically to Delhi Pradesh (BJP) and the office bearers of the party, with serious consequences of having targeted particular communities.

“Apparently, the imputations do not have any factual or legal base. The addition or deletion of names of voters at instance of any political party, has been categorically denied by the witness examined from the office of Chief Election Officer, in the pre-summoning evidence led on behalf of respondent No.2/complainant. Even otherwise, a political party hardly has any role in addition or deletion of the names in the voters list, as the said task is assigned to the Election Commission to be taken in accordance with law,” the court said.

Justice Mendiratta dismissed the plea moved by Kejriwal and others seeking quashing of the case and vacated the interim order passed in 2020 staying trial in the matter.

Directing the parties to appear before the trial court on October 03, the court clarified that nothing stated shall be tantamount to an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.

Counsel for Petitioners: Mr. Mohit Mathur, Sr. Advocate with Md. Irshad, Mr. Karan Sharma, Mr. Rajat Bhardwaj, Mr. Mohit Siwach, Mr. Harsh Gautam, Mr. Mayank Sharma and Mr. Kaustabh Khanna, Advocates

Counsel for Respondents: Mr. Sanjay Lao, Standing Counsel (Crl.) with Mr. Abhinav Kumar Arya, Mr. Shivesh Kaushik and Mr. Priyam Agarwal, Advocates for R-1; Ms. Sonia Mathur, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Piyush Beriwal, Mr. Neeraj, Mr. Himanshu Sethi, Mr. Nikhil Kumar Chaubey, Ms. Shubhi Bhardwaj, Mr. Nikhil Chandra Jaiswal and Ms. Ronika Soni, Advocates for R-2

Title: ARVIND KEJRIWAL & ORS v. STATE AND ANR

Click Here To Read Order