Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal today failed to get relief from the Supreme Court which dismissed his plea for a stay on proceedings in a criminal defamation case filed by Union Minister Arun Jaitley against him.
His counsel Ram Jethmalani tried to give a political colour to the matter by saying the case is a result of a fight between a "powerful minister" and the chief minister of a small state.
Jethmalani's arguments, including his attempt to rake up the issue of differences between judiciary and Centre over appointment of judges, did not cut ice with the apex court which refused to interfere with the judgement of the Delhi High Court giving the go ahead to the trial court in the criminal defamation against Kejriwal.
"We have seen the judgements of Delhi High Court and trial court. We can't interfere with the judgements. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the petition is dismissed," a bench of Justices P C Ghose and U U Lalit said.
Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi, who was present in the courtroom, did not make any submission to counter the arguments of Jethmalani.
Jethmalani sought a stay on the trial court proceedings in the case till the civil proceedings in the Delhi High Court continued.
The bench brushed aside Jethmalani's arguments that "appointment of judges in the High Court is being interfered. This is a fact known to every child in the country."
"Sir, we must please confine ourselves to the facts of the matter," the bench told Jethmalani.
Failing to persuade the bench, Jethmalani sought protection for Kejriwal by again saying that it is the fight between a person who is the finance minister of the country and a chief minister of a state.
"This is a fight between a finance minister of the country and a Chief Minister of a small state. Please protect the Chief Minister. You know what things are going on these days," the senior advocate said.
To this the bench again said, "We must not look beyond the records of the matter."
Jethmalani said that the decision or view of the High Court, where civil proceedings are going on, will be binding on the subordinate court, where criminal proceedings on the similar facts and circumstances of the case are pending.
The court reminded the senior lawyer that in the appeal
there is challenge to the order of a magistrate who has refused to quash the criminal proceedings against Kejriwal.
"The challenge is to the order of the magistrate who has refused to quash the proceedings, but you have not challenged that the allegations do not constitute the offence. Had you challenged that the allegations do not constitute a criminal offence, then it would have been different matter," the bench said.
Jethmalani again tried to convince the bench saying that people have great confidence in the high court, but there was interference in the collegium decision on appointment of judges.
"Sorry sir, we are not in the collegium," the bench again observed asking the counsel to stick to the facts of the case.
Jethmalani said that there is no specific law of the Supreme Court that both civil and criminal proceedings can continue parallely and the court should lay down the law.
"There is no specific law of the Supreme Court with regard to the matter. The principle is that criminal case should be stayed and civil proceedings on same facts and circumstances should be allowed to continue," he said.
To this, the bench said that under the Evidence Act, it is clearly stated that a judgement on civil matter is not applicable to the criminal proceedings.
It, however, said that though it theoretically accepted that on the same facts and circumstances both civil and criminal proceedings cannot continue, but there were no legal provisions with regard to this.
The high court had on October 19 dismissed Kejriwal's plea seeking stay of trial court proceedings in a criminal defamation case, saying there was no "illegality" in continuing it simultaneously with a civil defamation suit in the high court.
The high court had said there was "no prejudice" on account of a pending civil suit and there was no "double jeopardy" and as such Kejriwal's plea was "devoid of merit".
It had said the criminal and civil defamation cases were "different in nature".
Besides a civil defamation suit in the high court, Jaitley had also filed a criminal defamation complaint in a lower court alleging Kejriwal and five AAP leaders -- Raghav Chadha, Kumar Vishwas, Ashutosh, Sanjay Singh and Deepak Bajpai -- had defamed him in the Delhi District Cricket Association (DDCA) controversy.
(Reopens LGD21)
The trial court had earlier granted bail to Kejriwal and others in the case after they had appeared before it.
Jaitley had on December 21, 2015 filed the criminal defamation case against the AAP leaders and sought their prosecution for offences that entail a punishment of up to two years in jail.
Jaitley, in his civil defamation suit in the high court, has sought Rs 10 crore in damages from Kejriwal and the five AAP leaders for issuing allegedly false and defamatory statements against him and his family in connection with alleged irregularities in DDCA when he was its president.
