Delhi HC summons Uddhav Thackeray, Aaditya and Sanjay Raut in defamation case filed by Sena MP Rahul Shewale

The matter is now listed on April 17 for hearing on interim relief. The court also issued summons in the main lawsuit to Google and Twitter.

Appearing for Shewale, senior advocate Rajiv Nayar said, “I am appalled at some of the statements which are directed at independent institutions.”

Justice Jalan, however, observed that as far as summons or notice on the application is concerned, he would like to give the defendants an opportunity to respond. Nayar argued that he was only asking that “no further defamatory statements be made”. He submitted that the plaint (lawsuit) was served on the defendants already, and despite that, they have been making “defamatory statements”.

Justice Jalan, however, remarked that these were “political fights”. “As far as institutions are concerned, they have to stand for themselves. ECI’s shoulders are broad enough to take all this. Like the courts, people say all kinds of things about the courts also,” the high court said.

The high court queried whether Nayar’s client was “asking for an injunction against someone saying something about the Election Commission”. At this point, Nayar drew the court’s attention to some of the “statements” made by the defendants. “…. ‘This decision is bought by the faction led by Eknath Shinde faction for Rs 2,000 crores’…Can your lordship countenance this…Can he say that I purchased a verdict from the Election Commission? Does this not shock the court’s conscience?” Nayar argued.

Justice Jalan said that this was not a question of whether the allegations shocked the court’s conscience or not. “The question is whether in the free marketplace of ideas are people entitled to say things which might shock my conscience. Ultimately he will have to stand on his two legs. The truth of his statement will ultimately have to come out,” the high court remarked.

“I don’t wish to give a prima facie finding at this stage. I want to give them an opportunity to file their reply. You may have public interest, fair statement defence…I don’t want to pre-empt those defences,” Justice Jalan observed, adding that he was not saying that the defendants are right, wrong, good or bad. Justice Jalan further remarked that he did not want to pass a gag order against the defendants at this stage.

“We are working in a political field…certainly defamatory speech should not be made. I am only saying that even to come to that conclusion I would want to examine,” the court observed. At this stage, Nayar said that he was requesting that in the “guise of free speech”, defendants should not make “slanderous and defamatory” statements.

The high court recorded Nayar’s statements that though the “allegations are serious”, he does not press for ad interim orders at the ex-parte stage, reserving the right of the plaintiff to seek ad interim orders after the appearance of the defendants.

The high court further recorded Nayar’s statement that although Raut and the Thackerays have been served in advance, they have continued to make defamatory statements.