Manish Sisodia defamation case: HC stays proceedings against Delhi BJP spokesperson

Incidentally, on January 5, Justice Sharma had stayed trial court proceedings against other BJP leaders Hans Raj Hans and Manjinder Singh Sirsa in the same defamation case moved by Sisodia.

In 2019, Sisodia moved the trial court in a complaint against BJP MPs Manoj Tiwari, Hans Raj Hans and Pravesh Verma, MLAs Manjinder Singh Sirsa and Vijender Gupta, and Khurana for allegedly raising corruption charges against him in relation to Delhi Government school classrooms.

On November 28, 2019, summoning orders were issued by Vishal Pahuja, Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Rouse Avenue Court, to Khurana and the other leaders for offences under section 500 (defamation) and 34 (common intention) of the Indian Penal Code. Summons was also issued to Gupta under IPC section 500(defamation).

It was argued by Senior Advocate Kirti Uppal, appearing for Khurana, that his client was only present on the same platform as other accused persons and did not make any defamatory statement against Sisodia. He submitted that the trial court order was vague and summons were issued without appreciating the material on record. Khurana has sought quashing of the summoning order and a stay on trial court proceedings in the interim.

Uppal submitted that as far the two tweets made by the clients were concerned, the same were based on an RTI application wherein he sought details of the expenditure incurred by the Delhi government on the construction of classrooms in government schools. As per the information received, Rs 2,872 crore was spent by the Delhi Government for 12,748 classrooms, which amounts to Rs 24 lakh for the construction of one classroom. “I was just asking how these classrooms were made. It is an ordinary classroom… and you are spending Rs 24 lakh for one room,” Uppal said.

Uppal further said that BJP leaders Manoj Tiwari and Vijender Gupta moved the high court seeking quashing of the summoning order, which was dismissed on December 17, 2020, pursuant to which they moved the Supreme Court and on October 17, 2022 the apex court quashed the proceedings against Gupta, but refused to do so for Tiwari. He said that while quashing the proceedings against Gupta, the apex court held that tweets made by him do not amount to defamation and that the role played by Khurana and Gupta was the same, hence proceedings against his client should be quashed as well.

Uppal referred to para 61 of the Supreme Court’s verdict which states that the court, in the summoning order, did not go into the contents of the tweet made by Gupta and hence there was “no application of mind” by the trial court “to that extent”.

Sisodia’s counsel referred to the same judgment of the Supreme Court and said that the apex court recognised that while the Delhi High Court passed a common order rejecting Tiwari and Gupta’s quashing petition, their cases are however not exactly the same. He said that while Tiwari is accused under section 500 for defamation read with section 34 (common intention) of the IPC, Gupta was accused of defamation alone.

He argued that the earlier order of the high court, passed by a coordinate bench, merges with the Supreme Court order. The high court on Friday asked Khurana to place on record the decision of the coordinate bench of the high court passed on December 17, 2020 as well as the plea filed in the Supreme Court.