The Supreme Court on Tuesday failed to give any relief to Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal who sought stay of criminal defamation proceedings initiated against him by Finance Minister Arun Jaitley for leveling allegation of irregularities during Jaitley’s tenure as president of Delhi and District Cricket Association (DDCA).
Already, Jaitley had filed a Rs 10 crore civil suit against Kejriwal in the Delhi High Court. In December 2015, a criminal defamation case was lodged by Jaitley against Kejriwal and five other AAP leaders in a local Delhi court.
Appearing for the Delhi CM, senior advocate Ram Jethmalani submitted before a bench of Justices PC Ghose and UU lalit that the Supreme Court is yet to decide on the question whether civil and criminal defamation trial can proceed simultaneously. He pointed to a catena of decisions by several High Courts where majority view prevailed in favour of stay of criminal proceedings. However, there was no fixed rule since the Supreme Court has not given an authorititative pronouncement on this question. Jethmalani requested the court to consider laying down this law in the present case.
Dismissing Kejriwal’s petition, the court repeatedly asked Jethmalani to show a single judgement to demonstrate that a trial court order will have no binding effect on the High Court in such a simultaneous proceeding. He said that an order by the HC will command more respect and confidence in the mind of the public than a verdict by a trial court.
Jethmalani said that the real fight was between a Chief Minister of a small State and the Finance Minister of the country. “This is a case where the court must protect a Chief Minister of a State. You know the situation that is going on nowadays…does a person not have the freedom to comment on the misadministration of a cricket body,” Jethmalani said.
The bench replied, “We will not enter the merits of the case. Even in your petition you have challenged the order of the Magistrate refusing to stay the criminal proceeding. You are not challenging the proceedings per se that no offence is made out.” Jethmalani responded by saying that the stage for doing so had not arrived yet. But the bench quipped, “We do not think it is a fit case for us to interfere in the facts and circumstances of this case.”