The press conferences held by Aam Aadmi Party national convener Arvind Kejriwal and party leader Sanjay Singh in April 2023 raising doubt about Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s degree and the intent of Gujarat University (GU) in not providing the information in that regard were a “part of political strategy”, the Gujarat High Court ruled on Tuesday, while dismissing the petition filed by Kejriwal seeking a separate trial in the criminal defamation case of 2023.
In a separate order dismissing Singh’s petition that the trial court had violated the CrPC by not stating the substance of the allegations against him, the High Court ruled that Singh’s petition was an “afterthought” with an “intent to sabotage the proceedings” before the trial court. In the detailed judgments delivered by Justice M R Mengdey, which were made available on Thursday, the court noted that Kejriwal had tried to open “the same contention” as in an earlier Special Criminal Application in 2023, in which a coordinate bench of the HC had not passed an order.
The HC in its judgment noted that Kejriwal as well as Singh were “at the helm of a political party i.e. Aam Aadmi Party (AAP)” and had “decided to address a press conference after the order of this court (Gujarat HC), raising doubt about the degree of the Honorable Prime Minister and the intent on part of the University in not providing information in that regard”.
Stating that although the provisions of the Indian Penal Code in Section 120(B), which provides punishment for criminal conspiracy as well as Section 34 – for joint liability for criminal acts done in furtherance of a common intention – were not invoked against both the AAP leaders, the judgement states, “It appears that the petitioner and co-accused had decided to address the press conferences as a part of their political strategy and after holding those press conferences, videos of respective the press conferences were also uploaded by them. Therefore, it appears that the incident alleged against the petitioner as well as other co-accused were forming part of the same transaction.”
Rejecting the contention of the AAP leaders that the evidence adduced against one would be used against the another, the HC said: “It appears that the evidence which would be adduced against them during the course of trial would be the same…. Therefore, it is not likely that the separate set of evidence would be submitted against the other co-accused… except bare assertion in that regard, there is nothing on record to indicate as to what prejudice would be caused to the petitioner. It is merely an apprehension being voiced by the petitioner… to get the trial separated.”
The judgement states, “The learned trial court as well as learned sessions court while dismissing respective applications filed by the petitioner have rightly held that the acts alleged against the petitioner as well the other co-accused are arising out of the same transaction… Therefore, there is no reason for conducting a separate trial against the petitioner as well as the other co-accused…”
The High Court, after hearing the arguments put forth in regard with Singh’s plea, stated that a coordinate bench of the Gujarat High Court had already discarded Singh’s contentions after elaborate discussions regarding Piyush Patel– GU Registrar and complainant in the case– not being an aggrieved person and the contention that no prima facie case of defamation can be made out against Singh. The HC judgment states that it “gives an impression that the present proceedings have been filed (by Singh) with the motive of delaying the proceedings of the trial court on one pretext or other”.
Story continues below this ad
While deciding on the contention raised by Singh that the trial court had violated of provisions of Section 251 of CrPC– which mandates that the trial court must state the substance of accusations to the accused while recording the plea– the HC observed that “the petitioner was very much aware of the accusation levelled against him which would enable him to take appropriate action in his defence”.
The HC also noted that while recording his plea before the trial court in 2023, “the counsel representing the petitioner had not raised any alarm about the substance of accusation not being stated to him. It was only after a period of almost two years from the date of recording of his plea that the petitioner thought it fit to challenge the same by filing revision applications… it is nothing but an afterthought on part of the petitioner… with an intent to sabotage the proceedings before the learned trial court.”
The two AAP leaders had moved separate Special Criminal Applications in December 2025, after the Additional Principal Judge of the City Sessions court in Ahmedabad had dismissed their revision applications seeking quashing of the order of a magistrate court dated September 23, 2023, denying them a separate trial. Kejriwal had sought a trial separate from Singh while Singh, in his petition, had contended that no criminal conspiracy or common criminal intention could be made out in the case lodged against them.
The Gujarat University, in April 2023, had filed a complaint in the Metropolitan Court in Ahmedabad stating that the statements made by Kejriwal and Singh regarding the degrees of Prime Minister Narendra Modi and the Gujarat University were defamatory. Kejriwal and Singh made the statements following a Gujarat HC order that quashed a 2016 order of the Central Information Commission (CIC) directing GU to furnish the details of PM Modi’s degree under the Right to Information Act. The Magistrate Court had issued summons to Kejriwal and Singh in the matter.
The Gujarat HC had in February 2024 dismissed pleas filed by Kejriwal and Singh challenging the sessions court order which upheld the summons issued by the magistrate court.
Aditi Raja is an Assistant Editor with The Indian Express, stationed in Vadodara, Gujarat, with over 20 years in the field. She has been reporting from the region of Central Gujarat and Narmada district for this newspaper since 2013, which establishes her as a highly Authoritative and Trustworthy source on regional politics, administration, and critical socio-economic and environmental issues.
Expertise:
Core Authority & Specialization: Her reporting is characterized by a comprehensive grasp of the complex factors shaping Central Gujarat, which comprises a vast tribal population, including:
Politics and Administration: In-depth analysis of dynamics within factions of political parties and how it affects the affairs in the region, visits of national leaders making prominent statements, and government policy decisions impacting the population on ground.
Crucial Regional Projects: She consistently reports on the socio-economic and political impact of infrastructure projects in the region, especially the Statue of Unity, the Sardar Sarovar Project on the Narmada River, the Mumbai-Ahmedabad High Speed Rail bullet train project as well as the National Highway infrastructure.
Social Justice and Human Rights: Her reporting offers deep coverage of sensitive human-interest topics, including gender, crime, and tribal issues. Her reports cover legal proceedings from various district courts as well as the Gujarat High Court (e.g., the Bilkis Bano case remission, POCSO court orders, Public Interest Litigations), the plight of tribal communities, and broader social conflicts (e.g., Kheda flogging case).
Local Impact & Disaster Reporting: Excels in documenting the immediate impact of events on communities, such as the political and civic fallout of the Vadodara floods, the subsequent public anger, and the long-delayed river redevelopment projects, Harni Boat Tragedy, Air India crash, bringing out a blend of stories from the investigations as well as human emotions.
Special Interest Beat: She tracks incidents concerning Non-Resident Gujaratis (NRIs) including crime and legal battles abroad, issues of illegal immigration and deportations, as well as social events connecting the local Gujarati experience to the global diaspora. ... Read More
