New Delhi [India], November 11 : The Supreme Court on Monday issued notice to the concerned respondents on Union Minister Shivraj Singh Chauhan's plea challenging the Madhya Pradesh High Court order in a matter relating to a defamation complaint filed against him by the Senior Advocate Vivek Tankha.
A bench of justices Hrishikesh Roy and SVN Bhatti also granted interim relief to the union minister and stayed execution of bailable warrants subject to Chauhan effectively participating in the trial along with his lawyer till further hearing.
"Issue notice, returnable in four weeks," the top court said. "In the meantime, subject to the petitioners effective participation with counsel as may be needed, before the concerned Court, they need not be subjected to bailable warrants," the top court said.
Senior Advocate Mahesh Jethmalani and Advocate Nikhil Jain appeared for the petitioner Chauhan whereas Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal along with advocate Sumeer Sodhi appeared for Tankha.
Union Minister Chauhan has challenged the Madhya Pradesh High Court order dated October 25, 2024 rejecting his plea seeking quashing of a magisterial court's order taking cognizance of a criminal defamation complaint registered against him and others by Vivek Tankha.
Advocate Tankha in the complaint, alleged that the statements published in the newspaper/social media are defamatory imputing personal harm to the reputation of respondent. Advocate Tankha has alleged that the alleged defamatory statements were made by the Chauhan and other two.
The alleged defamatory statements respectively relate to 22 December 2021 and 25 December 2021, in the backdrop of the Madhya Pradesh local bodies elections. The counsel for Chauhan submitted that cognizance of the said proceeding was erroneously taken by the concerned court and the same should not have been done in the teeth of Article 194(2) of the Constitution.
Chauhan in his plea submitted that in the impugned order, the high court erred in not taking into consideration that no prima facie case was made out against him. The petitioner further submitted that the statements made in political discourse cannot be allowed to be used as weapons to settle further political scores.