AAP Supremo Arvind Kejriwal’s apology lead to closure of defamation suit by Delhi HC

Must Read

Madras High Court Observes Unexplained Delay in Procedural Safeguards, Quashes Detention Through Writ Petition

A Writ Petition was filed under Article 226 to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus. The petitioner P. Lakshmi,...

UK Court of Appeal Rules Home Department’s Deportation Policy of Immigrants Unlawful

Britain’s Court of Appeal quashed the Home Department’s deportation policy, declaring it unlawful; criticizing it for being too stringent...

Inordinate and Unexplained Delay in Considering Representation by Government Renders Detention Order Illegal: Madras High Court

A Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution was filed in the Madras High Court to declare the detention...

Privy Council Clarifies Approach To Winding up in “Deadlock” Cases in the Case of Chu v. Lau

The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council clarified several aspects of the law concerning just and equitable winding-up petitions,...

Madras High Court Directs Hospital To Submit Necessary Medical Reports to Authorization Committee for Approval of Kidney Transplant

A Writ Petition was filed under Article 226 to issue a Writ of Mandamus to K.G. Hospital, Coimbatore by...

Punjab Woman Evokes Petition for Protection Fearing Honour Killing

In the case of Divya Mattu and another vs State of Punjab and others, the petitioner, Divya, fearing honour...

Follow us

Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal tendered his apology to Union Minister and BJP leader Arun Jaitley which brought closure to the Rs. 10 crore defamation suit filed against him by Mr. Jaitley.

Facts of the case

In December 2015 Indian Finance Minister Arun Jaitley had filed a civil defamation suit against Arvind Kejriwal and AAP leaders Sanjay Singh, Deepak Bajpai, Kumar Vishwas, Ashutosh and Raghav Chadha. AAP leaders had accused the BJP leader of corruption in DDCA (Delhi and District Cricket Association) when he was serving as President of DDCA during 2000 to 2013.

Minister Jaitley denounced any foul play during his time as President and objected to AAP leaders accusation. He further stated that the false accusations had tarnished his reputation and thus he was seeking reparations to the tune of Rs. 10 crore for public defamation of his image.

Court proceedings

Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal and Union Minister Arun Jaitley both filed a petition with Delhi High Court on Monday, 2nd April 2018. Kejriwal represented by his lawyer advocate Anupam Srivastava told the Court that he had formally apologised to the BJP leader which has been accepted by Mr. Jaitley. The other AAP leaders except Kumar Vishwas tendered their own apologies to the Union Minister as well.

In his apology letter to the Union Minister, Mr. Kejriwal stated, “I have recently discovered that the information and the imputations contained therein are unfounded and unwarranted and I was clearly misinformed into making these allegations.” Kejriwal urged Mr. Jaitley to forget such “unsavoury litigations” so that they both could move forward to “serve the country to the best of our abilities.”

Arvind Kejriwal also declined to accept any responsibility for the defamatory remarks passed by his former advocate Ram Jethmalani during cross-examination of this defamation suit. Mr. Jaitley had filed a second defamation suit of Rs. 10 crores against Delhi CM when Senior advocate Jethmalani had used defamatory words against the Union Minister on March 19. Mr. Kejriwal unequivocally denied he had any role to play in the second defamation case and claimed that he had “never instructed his then counsel to use any scandalous words against the minister during the recording of evidence.”

Arun Jaitley represented by his lawyers’ Senior advocate Rajiv Nayyar and advocate Manik Dogra also confirmed AAP Supremo’s contention and stated his desire to see the closure of the defamation suit. Justice Manmohan accepted the contention of both the parties and disposed of the two-year-old defamation suit on 3rd April allowing AAP leaders a breather after the party leaders were seen getting embroiled in more than 20 defamation cases.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

Madras High Court Observes Unexplained Delay in Procedural Safeguards, Quashes Detention Through Writ Petition

A Writ Petition was filed under Article 226 to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus. The petitioner P. Lakshmi, called for records of the...

UK Court of Appeal Rules Home Department’s Deportation Policy of Immigrants Unlawful

Britain’s Court of Appeal quashed the Home Department’s deportation policy, declaring it unlawful; criticizing it for being too stringent on immigrants to comply with. Background The...

Inordinate and Unexplained Delay in Considering Representation by Government Renders Detention Order Illegal: Madras High Court

A Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution was filed in the Madras High Court to declare the detention order of the husband of...

Privy Council Clarifies Approach To Winding up in “Deadlock” Cases in the Case of Chu v. Lau

The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council clarified several aspects of the law concerning just and equitable winding-up petitions, as well as shareholder disputes...

Madras High Court Directs Hospital To Submit Necessary Medical Reports to Authorization Committee for Approval of Kidney Transplant

A Writ Petition was filed under Article 226 to issue a Writ of Mandamus to K.G. Hospital, Coimbatore by P. Sankar & V. Sobana....

Punjab Woman Evokes Petition for Protection Fearing Honour Killing

In the case of Divya Mattu and another vs State of Punjab and others, the petitioner, Divya, fearing honour killing against her by her...

Punjab Woman Accuses Punjab Police of Keeping Husband in Illegal Custody and Framing Him in a False Case

In the case of Geeta v the State of Punjab, the petitioner evoked a writ petition of habeas corpus as she claimed that her...

Addition of Words as Prefixes or Suffixes Is an Infringement of a Registered Trademark: Delhi High Court

Justice Jayanth Nath allowed the Times Group to use its registered trademark “Newshour”, in the case of Bennett Coleman and Co. Ltd v. ARG Outlier...

Just Because the Deceased Did Not Have License, Does Not Imply He Was Negligent: Chhattisgarh High Court

In the case of Hemlal & Others v. Dayaram & Others, a Single Bench of Chhattisgarh High Court consisting of Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal annunciated various...

Hoardings Are Movable Property Under Section 2(3) of DMC Act Subject To the Twin Test: Delhi High Court

Delhi High Court in the case of Delhi International Airport v South Delhi Metropolitan Corporation discussed in detail the provision under Section 2(3) of the DMC...

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -