Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal and five other AAP leaders were today summoned as accused in a criminal defamation complaint filed by Union Finance Minister Arun Jaitley by a court here which directed them to appear before it on April 7 while noting that allegations were "derogatory" and amounted to "slander and libel".
Besides Kejriwal, the court also summoned Ashutosh, Sanjay Singh, Kumar Vishwas, Raghav Chadha and Deepak Bajpai, observing that the allegations levelled by them against Jaitley were "not only insulting but jeeringly taunting and provocative".
"The allegations are not only insulting but jeeringly taunting and provocative. I have no hesitation to hold that the allegations levelled by the respondents (Kejriwal and five others) are derogatory in nature and amount to slander and libel," Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (CMM) Sumit Dass said.
The court summoned these six accused for alleged offences under section 500 (defamation) of the IPC read with section 34 (common intention) the IPC and directed them to appear before it on April 7.
The order came on Jaitley's criminal defamation complaint in which he had said that Kejriwal and these five AAP leaders had allegedly defamed him in the Delhi District Cricket Association (DDCA) controversy.
In its 30-page order, the court observed that the freedom of speech and expression was not an absolute right, "but one that is hedged with reasonable restrictions, with the law of defamation being the primary one."
"The language of public discourse ought to be within the confines of decency, if it transgresses those limits and becomes insulting, offensive and laced with innuendos, same may amount to defamation and become actionable at the end of the person aggrieved," it said.
Referring to the statements and Facebook and Twitter posts of the accused, the court said, "The statements have exposed the complainant (Jaitley) to ridicule, hatred and contempt amongst the right-thinking members of the society and lowered his reputation."
"The statements in the light of the pre-summoning evidence led (by Jaitley) manifest that the underlying common intent was to paint the complainant as a person of dubious integrity, involved in embezzlement of funds through unscrupulous deals," the court noted in its order.
In its order, the court said, "Reputation of a man is his
greatest asset. It takes years to build one's reputation. No one knows or realises this fact much better than people who hold public office or aspire for the same."
It noted that "summing up the statements - to call a person as corrupt/dishonest, one who indulges in financial bungling and having embezzled/siphoned off money to the tune of Rs 57 crores, calling him/equating him/drawing parallels with person who is involved in criminal case, casting aspersions about his integrity, are not legitimate acts of criticism but downright and per se defamatory in nature."
Referring to the pre-summoning evidence led on record, the court observed that it was beyond the "pale of dispute" that the accused had made imputations against Jaitley and published the same through electronic and social media.
"Thus, in so far as the publication or dissemination of the defamatory statement is concerned, I need not dilate any further on this point. Furthermore, it has come on record that the allegations levelled through the medium of Facebook posts attracted a huge viewership and were shared/followed by a significant number of persons and invariably amounts to publication of the same," it said.
The court noted that Jaitley, through the testimony of witnesses, has proved on record that while he was President of DDCA, "the accounts were duly audited/approved by AGM" and were submitted with the taxation authorities.
It observed that the fact that Jaitley has no association with a firm M/s 21st Century Media Pvt Ltd also "assists him on this aspects - points out about the falsity of allegations levelled by the respondents. This strengthens the probative worth of the complainant's version."
Detailing the alleged common intention of the six accused, the court said specific statements were made by them and even looked at in isolation, they were per se defamatory.
"However, reading them as a whole manifests a well orchestrated campaign and respondents appeared to have acted in unison. The identity in the content, proximity in terms of timing of their statements suggests a commonality of intent, shared purpose and active participation," it said.
It said the "defamatory allegations as levelled on Facebook posts and print media were intended to be read/shared by the maximum number of persons, the allegations resonating through the social media by tweets and re-tweets, all points out to the synchronized pattern, in quick succession of time and which also probabilise the existence of common intention.
