A Delhi court on Saturday fixed July 30 for hearing a criminal defamation case filed against Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal, his deputy Manish Sisodia and dissident AAP leader Yogendra Yadav by an advocate.
Metropolitan Magistrate Muneesh Garg, who has already received a copy of the order of the Supreme Court staying the proceedings of the case, posted the matter for the next date. The case is presently listed for pronouncement of order on the issue of framing of charges against the accused.
On April 17, the apex court had stayed prosecution of Mr. Kejriwal in the case on his plea challenging constitutional validity of the penal provisions of defamation law. The trial court had earlier released on bail Mr. Kejriwal, Mr. Sisodia and Mr. Yadav after they had appeared before it on June 4 last year in pursuance to summons against them. The summons were issued on the complaint of advocate Surender Kumar Sharma under sections 499, 500 (defamation) and 34 (common intention) of the IPC, with the court saying there was prima facie material to summon the accused.
On March 17, the three leaders were forced to appear in the court after their failure to do so had irked the magistrate who had remarked they have “no respect for law.” Mr. Sharma, in his complaint, had alleged that in 2013 he was approached by volunteers of AAP who had asked him to contest the Delhi Assembly elections on a party ticket, saying Mr. Kejriwal was pleased with his social services.
He filled up the application form to contest the polls after being told by Mr. Sisodia and Mr. Yadav that AAP’s Political Affairs Committee of the party had decided to give him the ticket. However, it was later denied to him. On October 14, 2013, the complainant claimed that articles in leading newspapers carried “defamatory, unlawful and derogatory words used by the accused persons” which have lowered his reputation in the Bar and the society.
While issuing summons against AAP leaders, the court had said, “The press release published in newspapers as well as testimonies of witnesses reflect that defamatory remarks were published in the newspaper which affected the reputation of the complainant in the society and lowered his reputation in the eyes of other members of the society.”
