 "Arvind Kejriwal")
The Supreme Court on Monday asked Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal, who has challenged a Delhi High Court order upholding the summons issued to him as an accused in a criminal defamation case, whether he wanted to give an apology to the complainant in the matter.
On February 26, Kejriwal told the apex court that he made a mistake by retweeting an allegedly defamatory video circulated by YouTuber Dhruv Rathee related to the BJP IT Cell.
During the hearing on Monday, a bench of justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta was told by the counsel appearing for complainant Vikas Sankrityayan that Kejriwal may issue an apology on public platforms like microblogging platform 'X' or Instagram.
"You tell us what you want. We can put it to the other side. We are not going to step into your shoes or the other side's shoes," the bench told the counsel.
The bench said the complainant can give the format of the apology to Kejriwal.
Also Read
"So, if you want to give an apology, you can circulate it without prejudice to your rights and contentions. Let him examine," the bench told senior advocate Abhishek Singhvi, who was appearing for Kejriwal.
"Otherwise we will examine the legal issue whether merely re-tweeting is criminal offence or not We may agree with you, we may agree with the other side. We will examine that," the bench said.
When one of the lawyers sought time to take instructions, the bench said, "Show him the apology. If he agrees to it, then it is fine".
While posting the matter for hearing in the week commencing May 13, the bench said its earlier order asking the trial court not to take up the defamation case till March 11 would continue till the next date of hearing.
On February 26, the apex court, without issuing notice on Kejriwal's plea challenging the high court order, had asked the complainant whether he wanted to close the matter in view of the petitioner accepting it was a mistake.
Singhvi had said it was a case for retweeting on social media platform 'X' and the complaint filed was immediately followed by recording of pre-summoning evidence.
"Thereafter, the complaint was withdrawn. When it was refiled, after nine months of the retweeting, it was suppressed that the original complaint was withdrawn," the senior lawyer had said.
In its February 5 verdict, the high court said that reposting alleged libellous content would attract the defamation law.
It said a sense of responsibility has to be attached while retweeting content about which one does not have knowledge and added that retweeting defamatory content must invite penal, civil as well as tort action if the person retweeting it does not attach a disclaimer.
The high court, while refusing to quash the trial court's 2019 order summoning Kejriwal, had said when a public figure tweets a defamatory post, the ramifications extend far beyond a mere whisper in someone's ears.
It had said if the act of retweeting or reposting is allowed to be misused as it is still considered to be a vacant grey area of law, it will encourage people with ill intentions to misuse it and conveniently take a plea that they had merely retweeted a content.
The chief minister had said in the high court that the trial court failed to appreciate that his tweet was not intended or likely to harm the complainant.
Sankrityayan claimed the YouTube video titled 'BJP IT Cell Part II' was circulated by Rathee, who lives in Germany, "wherein a number of false and defamatory allegations were made".
(Only the headline and picture of this report may have been reworked by the Business Standard staff; the rest of the content is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)
