Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal on Friday got a reprieve from the Supreme Court as it stayed his prosecution in two defamation complaints separately filed by Union Minister Nitin Gadkari and an aide of former Delhi CM Sheila Dikshit. Also, the SC sought a reply from the Centre on Kejriwal’s plea challenging constitutional validity of the penal provisions.
AAP chief Kejriwal chose senior advocate Rajeev Dhavan as his lawyer to mention the petition before a bench of Justices Dipak Misra and PC Pant and obtain a stay. He had allegedly named the leaders in a list of corrupt politicians that invited the ire of the two leaders. The SC tagged Kejriwal’s petition with a similar matter filed by BJP leader Subramanian Swamy challenging validity of Sections 499 and 500 of IPC that makes defamation punishable with a two-year jail term.
The pending question of the law on the criminal defamation provision also came to the rescue of Kejriwal before another court where a similar defamation petition filed by lawyer Amit Sibal is pending. Amit, who is son of top lawyer and Congress leader Kapil Sibal, had sought damages from top AAP leaders for alleging that he took advantage of his father’s position as then Telecom Minister to represent telecom companies in the court.
The Bench headed by Chief Justice Hl Dattu took note of Swamy’s pending petition and felt that if Section 500 was to go, nothing remained in the matter. Interestingly, senior lawyer Amit Sibal was represented by senior lawyer Rajeev Dhavan, who just minutes ago had obtained a stay for Kejriwal from another court.
Donning the hat of both the accuser and accused at the same time, Dhavan staved off the embarrassment in the Court after this fact was brought to the notice of CJI by senior lawyer Jayant Bhushan, the younger brother of Kejriwal’s political friend-turned-foe Prashant Bhushan, also named by Sibal in the defamation suit. Dhavan pressed the Court hard to examine the question whether Kejriwal and other contemnors were entitled to seek discharge in a case where summons were issued by the Magistrate.