The Supreme Court on Thursday stayed the Arvind Kejriwal Government’s attempt to muzzle the Press and media houses from reporting adverse about the Chief Minister, Ministers or public functionaries of the State through a circular issued by the Delhi Government on May 6. “Issue notice (to Kejriwal). However, as an interim measure we direct stay of the circular dated May 6, 2015 till further order of this court. Accordingly, it is stayed,” said a Bench comprising Justices Dipak Misra and Prafulla C Pant.
The court passed the order on an application filed by Amit Sibal who had filed a defamation case against Kejriwal in the Patiala House court here. The court, however, asked Kejriwal to explain why the directorate of information has issued “such circular,” when he had earlier sought setting aside of penal laws on defamation and ordered the CM to reply within six weeks, listing the matter for further hearing on July 8.
The CM had earlier obtained a stay on the trial proceedings on May 1 by raising questions on the legal validity of Section 499 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) dealing with criminal defamation. But, the May 6 order declared that if any Minister or public functionary in the State felt that his reputation was harmed by any news reporting, the Principal Secretary (Home) on receiving the complaint will be free to launch defamation proceedings in the case.
The Bench, however, refused to vacate its earlier order but stayed the circular as it would lead to more prosecutions under Section 499 while the challenge is pending in court. The first petition, challenging the defamation clause, was filed by senior BJP leader Subramanian Swamy in public interest. He argued that defamation could at best be a civil wrong. By making it a penal offence, punishable with maximum two years imprisonment, threat was induced to subjugate free and fearless opinion.
Further, the Bench has set out to determine whether the provision of defamation under IPC is a reasonable restriction or it is an infringement on the fundamental Right to Free Speech and Expression enshrined in Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. The court had asked eminent jurists K Parasaran and TR Andharujina to assist in the matter as amicus curiae for a correct determination of the pre-Independence law.