Delhi Court Acquits CM Arvind Kejriwal, Manish Sisodia & Yogender Yadav In 2013 Criminal Defamation Case Filed By Advocate

A Delhi Court today acquitted Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal, Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia and former Aam Aadmi Party leader Yogender Yadav in a 2013 criminal defamation case filed by an advocate.

ACMM Vidhi Gupta Anand was of the view that the Complainant had failed to prove his case beyond all reasonable doubts and that the quality and relevancy, and not quantity of evidence, is what determines the fate of a case.

"Culpability can be attached to the Accused persons only if it is proved that they have committed the alleged offence, which in this case, the Complainant failed to do despite several efforts. In these circumstances, as a natural corollary following to the discussion above held, this court cannot hold the Accused persons guilty in the present case," the Court said in an 81 pages order.

Advocate Surender Kumar Sharma had filed a complaint against the three alleging that in view of some defamatory newspaper articles, he was falsely presented as a person with criminal record and doubtful credentials.

He alleged that the derogatory and defamatory words used by the accused in newspapers lowered his image and reputation at the Bar as well as in the eyes of general public and society at large. It was also alleged that the language used in the publications had caused mental trauma to him and his family members including his as well as his nephew's Advocacy.

On the other hand, Kejriwal, Sisodia and Yadav disowned the news publication and took a defence of truth for public good. They also denied that they gave any press-release on the basis of which the alleged defamatory news articles were published.

The Court was of the view that the right to reputation of a person is akin to his right to live with dignity and that the importance attached to the same can be adjudged from the fact that in Indian law, an attack of reputation of a person, is not just a civil wrong covered under the law of torts but a criminal wrong.

"Right to reputation has been embedded as one of the fundamental rights covered under the larger concept of Right to Life. Hence, undoubtedly, since time immemorial, Indian society identifies reputation as a person's most prized possession and it holds even more importance for persons who are in the profession of public dealing; viz, advocates and politicians alike."

Appreciating the evidence on record, the Court opined that even though Complainant alleged that the Accused defamed him by getting the alleged news articles published, he failed to prove the accused either authored or authorized the issuance of press release.

"Neither any media representative of the Accused persons was brought in the witness box to prove the issuance of press release at the instance of the Accused persons nor any first hand statement of any of the Accused persons in respect of the alleged defamatory articles was brought on record. There is no denial to the fact that nothing on record has been brought by the Complainant to establish that it was the Accused persons who got the alleged defamatory news articles published," the Court said.

The Court also observed that the Complainant was unable to prove any affirmative act on the part of the Accused persons to constitute the offense of defamation.

"The case of the Complainant becomes weak on the very first aspect itself. When the Complainant has been unable to prove that it was the Accused persons who gave the alleged defamatory press release/statements, no question arises to go into the discussion as to whether those statements were defamatory or not. In other words, where the foundation of the complaint case itself fails, the superstructure built on the same is bound to fail," the Court added.

Title: Surender Kumar Sharma v. Arvind Kejriwal & Ors.