A Delhi court on Tuesday quashed the summons issued against Delhi Chief Minister Atishi by an Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (ACMM) in a defamation complaint filed by a Bharatiya Janta Party (BJP) leader. .The complainant filed by BJP leader Praveen Shankar Kapoor accused Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leaders of defamation over statements that the BJP was approaching AAP MLAs and offering them bribes for switching sides.Special Judge (MP/MLA cases) Vishal Gogne said the order passed by ACMM on May 28, 2024 suffers from material error and infirmity. "A court of law cannot aid the tilting of the democratic balance between unequal political formations and against the right to freedom of speech and expressions as well as the right to vote through contrived criminal actions for defamation filed by non aggrieved persons," the special court said.Pertinently, the Court also took a dim view of the complaint filed by the BJP leader and said that it seemed to be an attempt by a larger party like BJP to scupper the smaller voice of AAP using defamation and the same cannot be permitted.The BJP must project a broader shoulder in accepting alternative political narrative, the Court emphasised."The big voice cannot scupper the smaller voice using the weapon of defamation. Any foot solider of a big enterprise like the party in question (BJP) must necessarily project broad shoulders in accepting an alternative political narrative. Such responsibility accompanies the privilege of being the ruling party," it further said..The Court gave the following reasons to quash the summoning order and Kapoor's complaint:- The pre-summoning evidence did not present adequate grounds to summon Atishi as an accused.- The allegations made by Atishi through the tweet and press conferences are in the nature of disclosing the commission of a criminal offence and merit investigation. She is in the nature of a whistle blower and cannot be treated as having acted to defame the BJP.- The allegations made by Atishi constitute the exercise of the right to freedom of speech concerning political corruption and do not constitute defamation under section 500 IPC.Further, the Court also held that the allegations made by Atishi "also activate" the right to know as a part of the right to vote of the citizens as recognised in the Electoral Bonds case and other decisions by Supreme Court."The right of the citizen to gain information about the veracity of such allegations is accentuated when the alleged poacher is a wealthy political outfit and the purported prey is a fledging party. Any action, even by way of a complaint under section 500 IPC, which essentially seeks to muzzle and tarnish the whistle blower would necessarily be curtailing the right of the citizen to know about the details of investigation into the allegations." The complaint by the BJP leader is an attempt to defeat criminal probe and suppress free speech, the Court underlined.."The complaint by Mr. Praveen Shankar Kapoor is an attempt to defeat criminal investigation and suppress the freedom of speech as well as the right to know. Whilst such tactics may be part and parcel of political strategy, a court of law cannot be a party to the creation of a chilling effect on freedom of speech by admitting or acting upon such efforts to silence whistle blowers or smaller political opponents. To summon Ms. Atishi for the offence of defamation in the present allegations would be suppressive of the freedom of speech and the accountability of public office," it said..The judge also said that the allegations made by Atishi are in the nature of specific information regarding a possible criminal offence having been committed "with the proposed use of large sums of money by a party with more against a party with less"."If the allegations made by her carry the weight of evidence, it would be for the investigation authorities to examine the same. In the alternative, these are allegations of a political nature which are fit to be answered at the hustings rather than in witness boxes of the courts. In neither of these scenarios would the ingredients of defamation under section 500 IPC be satisfied on the ‘high threshold’," the Court added..The complaint is reflective of a cloak and dagger approach as BJP members wanted to initiate criminal investigation into the allegations of horse trading made by Atishi and have simultaneously sought to prosecute her for defamation over these very allegations, the Court further said."Regardless of status, a complainant, even if a seemingly powerful person as the Chief Minister, deserves protection, at least from prosecution on the specious allegations of defamation," it added..The Court also said that Atishi's prosecution in the present case was aimed at suppressing the narrative that a large political behemoth was admitting to swallow smaller political outfits by the use of a money power and the threat to unleash investigation agencies. "To propagate such a narrative is also a part of the freedom of political speech of the smaller party," the Court made it clear..These allegations are part of the freedom of political speech and such utterances encompass a wide variety of criticism, allegations and insinuations commonly made by political parties, activists or even citizens against other political formations, he added."The present allegations made by Ms. Atishi essentially alleged attempts at political corruption by the BJP for poaching the MLAs of the Aam Aadmi Party. To view these allegations, in the context of defamation, in isolation from the established debate on such topics would be to employ a harsher standard for one political outfit viz Aam Aadmi Party," the Court said..In all these discourses, the political question must be answered by the court of the people through elections and not the courts of law through discussions on defamation, the judge emphasized while quashing the summons..[Read Order]
