Modi degree defamation case: State or its organs can’t sue citizens, Kejriwal to Ahmedabad court

Last week, on September 2, the Principal District and Sessions Judge of the Ahmedabad city civil sessions court assigned the criminal revision pleas to the court of Additional Sessions Judge JM Brahmbhatt. The development came after directions from the Gujarat High Court. The High Court also directed to decide on the revision pleas within 10 days from the date of assigning the matters to the court concerned.

In the defamation complaint, moved by Gujarat University (GU) Registrar Piyush Patel before the Ahmedabad Magistrate Court, Kejriwal and Singh, represented by advocate Aum Kotwal, have been accused of defamation based on their statements to media in response to the HC’s decision to set aside an order of the Central Information Commission. The CIC had directed the GU to “search for information” regarding PM Modi’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.

Advocate Somnath Vatsa, arguing on behalf of Kejriwal, submitted that the GU, being a state organ, could not bring in a suit of defamation as per the Supreme Court-laid proposition. He also referred to the Gujarat University Act provisions that state that the University “shall have perpetual succession and a common seal and shall sue and be sued by the said name”.

Vatsa thereby questioned if the Registrar was indeed the authority who could have sued for defamation. He also pointed out that the Magistrate Court, while issuing summons, was not circumspect and failed to take into account the larger context of the eight-odd minute long press conference where the alleged defamatory remark was made. Instead, he said, the trial Magistrate Court only examined two-odd minutes of the entire speech.

He further submitted that sometimes during press conferences, digression happens.

Thus the magistrate ought to have examined what was asked during the presser, which has not been examined, Vatsa stressed.

Irrelevant aspects, such as the Magistrate’s conclusion that the remark was made to settle political scores have been taken into consideration, he said.

Advocate Farrukh Khan, who was appearing on behalf of Singh, also submitted that the Magistrate Court while issuing summons, was “misled” by the complainant and that the Supreme Court has observed that the government cannot sue its citizens “because if they do, we will just have defamation cases day-in and day-out”.

Khan also submitted the complainant has alleged the remarks were made to score political brownie points but pointed out that GU cannot be a political opponent of the accused AAP leaders and thus the complainant’s reasoning will not hold. “If I’ve certain reasonable apprehensions about (a piece of information), irrespective of whether I’m correct or not, am I not entitled to raise questions?…If my friend photoshops a degree from Delhi University, Gujarat University, Banaras University…he is the one who forged, not the university,” Khan added.

Terming the matter as a “classic textbook example of post-hoc fallacy syndrome”, Khan added that nowhere in the alleged defamatory remarks pertaining to PM Modi’s degree, is the university mentioned and stressed that the cause of action for the defamation case “is illusory in nature”.

Quoting Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud that dissent is the safety valve of democracy, as well as quoting Ugandan dictator Idi Amin that “there is freedom of speech but I cannot

guarantee freedom of speech”, Khan stressed that the danger of public authorities’ right to sue has been noted in India and worldwide.

The court has kept the matter for hearing on September 8.