After the Gujarat High Court overturned the Chief Information Commissioner’s decision regarding PM Narendra Modi’s educational background, Gujarat University Registrar Piyush Patel filed a defamation complaint against Arvind Kejriwal and Sanjay Singh for their remarks.
From Press Trust of India Arvind Kejriwal, the chief minister of Delhi, and Sanjay Singh, an AAP member, filed revision papers in this court on Tuesday, contesting the summons issued by a lower court for them to appear in person on July 26 in a defamation case brought by the Gujarat University.
Judge AJ Kanani of the Sessions Court gave notice of the revision petitions to the Gujarat Government and the GU and set the hearing on August 5.
After the Gujarat High Court reversed the Chief Information Commissioner’s decision about PM Narendra Modi’s educational background, GU Registrar Piyush Patel filed a defamation complaint against Kejriwal and Singh, a Rajya Sabha member.
Revision Petitions Were Filed by Kejriwal and Singh
Separate revision petitions were filed by Kejriwal and Sanjay Singh in accordance with section 397 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which enables sessions courts to request and review the record of any lower court process in order to verify the accuracy, legitimacy, and propriety of any judgment, sentence, or order.
Based on a complaint made by the GU, a magistrate’s court accepted a criminal defamation case in April and summoned both AAP leaders to give testimony on their “sarcastic” and “derogatory” statements regarding Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s educational background.
Gujarat High Court Recent Hearing
In the most recent hearing, which was held on July 13, the defense submitted an exemption request claiming that Kejriwal and Sanjay Singh were unable to attend due to the intense rain in Delhi. As a result, additional chief metropolitan magistrate S J Panchal ordered the pair to show up on July 26.
Both AAP leaders argued in the revision petitions that the magistrate court had “committed an error of law” in issuing the summoning order.
According to the revision argument, section 199 of the CrPC provides that only “a person aggrieved” may file a defamation complaint. But the actual lawsuit “does not even allege that Piyush Patel, the GU Registrar, has been claimed to have been defamed”
In addition, the authority letter Patel was given by the vice chancellor of GU to act as a complainant contained no mention of the grievance or the basis for the lawsuit, and even the names of the AAP leaders were absent, according to the plea.
The summoning order was deemed “self-contradictory” by the AAP leaders in their pleadings. On the one hand, the magistrate had noted in his order that the statements were made in an effort to harm political rivals. However, the plea stated that it appears from the evidence in the order that GU was the object of mocking remarks.
Both AAP leaders pleaded with the session court judge to accept their revision arguments, overturn and annul the summons, and request and review the magistrate’s court procedures.
Additionally, they requested the court to dismiss and disregard the primary defamation complaint.
In the complaint, GU Registrar Piyush Patel claimed that Kejriwal and Singh’s comments on the university were defamatory and meant to harm the institution’s reputation.
The university had stated that reading Kejriwal and Singh’s comments would lead one to conclude that the GU awards phony and fraudulent degrees.