Disposing applications moved by Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal and AAP MP Sanjay Singh before the Gujarat High Court, seeking expeditious hearing of criminal revision applications filed in relation to a defamation criminal case that they face, the HC on Tuesday directed a court in Ahmedabad to decide the revision pleas within 10 days from the assignment of the matter to the concerned judge. Kejriwal and Singh, in revision pleas pending before the Ahmedabad city sessions court, have challenged the issuance of summons by an Ahmedabad magistrate court in relation to the criminal defamation case filed over their alleged statements regarding Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s educational degrees. The sessions court judge – presiding over the revision pleas – is on leave until September 15, owing to which, the in charge judge of the same court had passed an order on August 22, refusing to grant expeditious hearing. The judge had instead posting the matter for September 16, so that it can be heard by the regular presiding judge. The urgency expressed by Kejriwal and Singh for hearing the revision applications by the sessions court is owing to the fact that the magistrate court, which is trying the case, has recorded their pleas and is due to proceed with the recording of evidence on August 31. State Public Prosecutor Mitesh Amin and the original complainant in the case – Gujarat University (GU) Registrar Piyush Patel – represented by senior advocate Nirupam Nanavaty, both conceded before the court of Justice Samir Dave on Tuesday that in a scenario where the presiding judge at the sessions court is not available, any judge available can hear the matter. Both said that they are not opposed to an expeditious decision on the revision applications. However, Amin and Nanavaty pointed out that Kejriwal and Singh had failed to personally appear before the magistrate court to record their pleas and had instead recorded them through their advocates. Amin said, “.point boils down to not abiding or adhering with the statement made before the court, which is in the form of undertaking (that the two accused of defamation will personally appear before the court).” Nanavaty added, “.Question is, they feel shy in appearing (in person before the magistrate court) all throughout. personal appearance. and we are not interested particularly to keep them present in court and humiliate them in any manner, that’s not the idea. The idea is that the criminal case should not wait till you find it convenient. Now, the plea is recorded, we are fine with that situation. Revision can be decided, how can we say no to it.” Notably, one of the requests of Kejriwal and Singh before the sessions court was to stay further proceedings in the defamation criminal case before the magistrate court, pending final decision in the revision pleas. This request was rejected by the sessions court, following which they had approached the HC. The HC, too, had earlier refused to grant interim stay on the defamation proceedings before the magistrate court, following which the two had approached the Supreme Court. The SC on August 25 had dismissed the plea, recording that the matter is sub-judice before the HC. Meanwhile, the magistrate court, where the defamation complaint is being heard, is due to take up the criminal case on August 31. To this effect, the HC recorded that if any application is made by Kejriwal and Singh, seeking adjournment in the trial before the magistrate court, the original complainant – the GU registrar – will give his no objection. In the defamation complaint, moved by GU Registrar Piyush Patel before the Ahmedabad magistrate court, Kejriwal and Singh have been accused of defamation based on their statements to the media in response to the HC's decision to set aside an order of the Central Information Commission that had directed GU to “search for information” regarding the PM's degrees. According to the complaint, the statements were made before the media and broadcast through Twitter with the intention of damaging the reputation of the university, despite knowing that such utterances would be defamatory.
