DTC Buses Procurement Row: Delhi High Court Asks AAP Minister Kailash Gahlot, BJP MLA To Explore Settlement In Defamation Suit

The Delhi High Court on Wednesday asked Delhi Transport Minister Kailash Gahlot and BJP MLA Vijender Gupta to explore the possibility of arriving at a settlement in a defamation suit filed over alleged defamatory remarks about Gahlot over procurement of 1,000 low-floor DTC buses.

A division bench comprising of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju 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 was the case of Gahlot that Gupta had, 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 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.

During the course of hearing today, counsel appearing for Gupta told the Court that after an oral commitment was made before the division bench, no statement was made against Gahlot keeping in view the pendency of the suit.

As Gahlot's counsel hinted towards putting an end to the litigation, Gupta's counsel said that being the plaintiff and complainant to the defamation suit, it was Gahlot who has to put an end to the controversy in question and not him.

On this, Justice Shakdher orally told counsel appearing for Gupta thus:

"Please appreciate. You made some statement which he thought was defamatory. According to you it wasn't. He went to court, wasn't able to get an injunction and came in appeal. Now he is saying put an end to it. Whatever is said is said. I can't undo it. It's in public domain. Henceforth, on this issue, nothing more…"

Accordingly, the Court asked the counsel appearing for the parties to explore the possibility of arriving at a settlement in the matter.

"Counsel for the parties will explore the possibility to arrive at a settlement," the Court directed, while posting the matter for hearing on December 20.

"These matters don't go anywhere. It is only posturing. You pick up the history of political defamation cases. It is only posturing," Justice Shakdher remarked .

The Court also directed the parties to file their written submissions within a period of four weeks.

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 he did not receive sufficient answers.

Thus, to prevent him from commenting on the issue would not only amount to a "gag order", but would also prevent him from effectively discharging his public duties as an MLA by raising questions legitimately, on action taken or not taken by the government, particularly when it would be obligated, at least in the Assembly, to answer the very same questions.

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.