The Gujarat High Court on Tuesday dismissed appeals filed by Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leaders Arvind Kejriwal and Sanjay Singh, who had sought separate trials in a defamation case concerning their remarks on Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s educational degree. The single bench of Justice MR Mengdey rejected the leaders’ pleas, upholding the decisions of the trial and city sessions courts that had earlier denied their requests.

Background of the case

The defamation case was filed by Gujarat University registrar Piyush Patel, who alleged that Kejriwal and Singh made “sarcastic and derogatory” statements against the university in relation to PM Modi’s degree. The comments, according to the complainant, were made in April 2023 during press conferences and on social media platforms, including Twitter. Patel contended that these statements were deliberately intended to tarnish the reputation of Gujarat University, which has established its credibility and public trust over the years.

The complainant claimed that the remarks targeted the prestige of the university and were widely disseminated through both traditional and social media channels, amplifying their impact. The registrar argued that the statements were not merely personal criticisms but carried a potential to damage the university’s public image, making them defamatory under Indian law.

Plea for separate trials

Kejriwal, former Chief Minister of Delhi, and Singh, a Rajya Sabha MP, had sought separate trials on multiple grounds. They contended that the allegations against them were distinct, with differences in the specific statements attributed to each and variations in the dates on which the comments were made. They argued that these differences warranted individual trials to ensure fairness in the judicial process.

However, both the trial court and the sessions court had previously rejected these pleas. The sessions court, in its December 15 order last year, observed that the statements made by Kejriwal and Singh on April 1 and 2, 2023, were part of a “single transaction” and appeared to be “animated by a common purpose.” The court noted continuity in their actions and emphasized that as members of the same political party, their remarks were interconnected.

High Court decision

Upon reviewing the appeals, the Gujarat High Court upheld the lower courts’ rulings, dismissing the AAP leaders’ request for separate trials. Justice Mengdey observed that prima facie, there appeared to be a case against both leaders under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which deals with punishment for defamation.

The court’s decision effectively means that Kejriwal and Singh will face a joint trial, reflecting the perception that their actions were part of a coordinated effort rather than isolated incidents. The bench’s ruling underscores the judiciary’s stance that cases involving statements made in concert by multiple individuals with a common purpose may be tried together, even if the remarks or dates vary slightly.

Context of the remarks

The allegedly defamatory comments were made in response to the Gujarat High Court setting aside the Chief Information Commissioner’s order that had directed the disclosure of PM Modi’s degree. In this context, Kejriwal and Singh had publicly questioned the authenticity and transparency of the degree, framing their criticisms in a manner that, according to the university, undermined its credibility.

The AAP leaders’ remarks came at a time when debates over public officials’ educational qualifications were politically charged, amplifying the scrutiny of their statements. The court’s decision to reject separate trials indicates that it viewed the remarks as part of a broader political narrative pursued jointly by both leaders rather than isolated criticisms by individuals.

Legal implications

Under Section 500 of the IPC, defamation is punishable with imprisonment for up to two years, a fine, or both. By dismissing the plea for separate trials, the Gujarat High Court has clarified that coordinated statements made with a common intent can be treated as a single transaction, reinforcing the principle that collective actions in defamation cases may be addressed in a joint trial.

The ruling also highlights the judiciary’s consideration of public institutions’ reputations and the potential harm caused by widely disseminated statements. Courts have consistently recognized that statements targeting established institutions, particularly those entrusted with public responsibilities like universities, carry significant weight in defamation proceedings.

Next steps

With the high court dismissing their appeals, Kejriwal and Singh will now face a joint trial in the defamation case. The court-issued summons affirm that a prima facie case exists, and the judicial process will proceed to examine the merits of the allegations, the context of the statements, and whether they constitute defamation under the law.

The case continues to attract attention due to its political undertones, as it involves high-profile leaders and touches upon issues of transparency, public accountability, and the role of media in disseminating political commentary. Observers note that the trial will likely focus on whether the leaders’ statements were legitimate expressions of political opinion or crossed the line into defamation against a public institution.

Conclusion

The Gujarat High Court’s decision to reject separate trials for Arvind Kejriwal and Sanjay Singh in the defamation case against PM Modi underscores the judiciary’s approach to coordinated statements with a common intent. By allowing a joint trial, the court has reinforced the principle that connected actions may be treated as a single transaction, even if there are minor variations in the statements or dates. The ruling ensures that the case will be adjudicated in a consolidated manner, reflecting both legal and practical considerations in defamation law.

The trial will now proceed, with the court examining the substance of the allegations and determining whether the remarks made by the AAP leaders constitute defamation under Section 500 of the IPC, taking into account the impact on Gujarat University’s reputation and the broader political context in which the comments were made.