Supreme Court Stays Proceedings against Kejriwal in Two Defamation Cases

Must Read

Bombay High Court Passes Order To Clarify and Modify Previous Order When State of Maharashtra Moved Praecipe

Division Bench of Bombay High Court consisting of Justice S. V. Gangapurwala and Justice Shrikant D. Kulkarni had passed...

The European Court of Human Rights Orders Germany To Pay Non-Pecuniary Damages for Prison Strip-Searches 

A serving German prisoner was repeatedly stripped searched for non-legitimate purposes. The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) found...

Lack of Independent Witness Doesn’t Vitiate Conviction: Supreme Court

A three-judge Bench of the Supreme Court in Rajesh Dhiman v State of Himachal Pradesh clarified the law in...

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...

Supreme Court Stays Order Restraining Physical Campaigns in the Madhya Pradesh Bye-Elections

On the 26th of October, a Bench was set up which comprised Justice AM Khanwilkar, Justice Dinesh Maheshwari, and...

Follow us

The Supreme Court on Friday stayed proceedings in trial courts in two criminal defamation cases against Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal and decided to hear them along with the pleas in which the constitutional validity of the penal provisions have been challenged.

The apex court did not accept the plea that prosecution should continue in the trial court in the defamation cases filed by former union minister Kapil Sibal’s son and Sheila Dikshit’s ex-political secretary against Kejriwal and others.

Once we have directed stay in other cases, it will follow in other cases also’, a bench comprising Justices Dipak Misra and P.C. Pant said while issuing notice to the Centre and other respondents in the matter.

It is a pre-Constitution law. It has to be examined whether it offends the provisions of the Constitution,’ the bench said referring to sections 499 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code which deals with criminal defamation and is scheduled to be listed for hearing on July 8.

Sibal’s son Amit Sibal, also a senior advocate, had filed the defamation case against Kejriwal and the then Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leaders Prashant Bhushan and Shazia Ilmi for their comment that he took advantage of his father’s position while Dikshit’s ex-political secretary Pawan Khera sued the Chief Minister for his alleged remarks against his predecessor during protests over power tariff hike in October 2012.

Their counsel wanted the apex court to restrain media from publishing the defamatory contents but there was no order in this regard.

On April 17, the court had stayed prosecution of Kejriwal in defamation cases filed by Union Minister Nitin Gadkari and advocate Surender Kumar Sharma.

Gadkari had alleged that he was defamed by the AAP leader who had included his name in the party’s list of ‘India’s most corrupt’. The proceedings are pending and the Union Minister has recently partly recorded his statement in the case.

Latest News

Bombay High Court Passes Order To Clarify and Modify Previous Order When State of Maharashtra Moved Praecipe

Division Bench of Bombay High Court consisting of Justice S. V. Gangapurwala and Justice Shrikant D. Kulkarni had passed an Order on 25th October...

The European Court of Human Rights Orders Germany To Pay Non-Pecuniary Damages for Prison Strip-Searches 

A serving German prisoner was repeatedly stripped searched for non-legitimate purposes. The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) found that Germany had violated the...

Lack of Independent Witness Doesn’t Vitiate Conviction: Supreme Court

A three-judge Bench of the Supreme Court in Rajesh Dhiman v State of Himachal Pradesh clarified the law in case of lack of independent...

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...

Supreme Court Stays Order Restraining Physical Campaigns in the Madhya Pradesh Bye-Elections

On the 26th of October, a Bench was set up which comprised Justice AM Khanwilkar, Justice Dinesh Maheshwari, and Justice Sanjiv Khanna. They heard...

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...

Supreme Court Asks Petitioner to Approach Bombay High Court in PIL for CBI Probe in Disha Salian Case

On the 26th of October 2020, the Apex Court heard the PIL praying for a CBI probe into the death of Disha Salian. The...

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....

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -