Who did the case on Shivraj Singh Chauhan? Sought compensation of Rs 10 crore; What is the matter – India tv hindi

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Wednesday extended the period of its earlier order in which Union Agriculture Minister Shivraj Singh Chauhan was exempted from personal appearance before the subordinate court in the criminal defamation case filed by Congress MP Vivek Tankha. Senior advocate Tankha has alleged that Union Minister and BJP state unit president VD Sharma and former minister Bhupendra Singh launched a “coordinated, malicious, false and defamatory” campaign against him for political gains and accused the Other Backward Classes (OBC) reservation in the 2021 panchayat elections in Madhya Pradesh.

What is the whole matter?

In his complaint in the subordinate court, Tankha said that in 2021, defamable statements were made before the panchayat elections in Madhya Pradesh. He had said that after the apex court’s order dated December 17, 2021, BJP leaders had alleged that they had opposed reservation for the OBC community in the local body elections, which damaged their reputation. Tankha’s petition requested compensation of Rs 10 crore and criminal defamation proceedings against BJP leaders. BJP leaders denied the allegations in the High Court and argued that the clippings of newspapers attached by Tankha cannot become the basis of defamation complaint and the subordinate court cannot take cognizance of it.

A special court in Jabalpur had summoned them on 20 January 2024 by registering a defamation case under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) against the three BJP leaders.

Now hearing on 26 March

Today, a bench of Supreme Court Justice MM Sundresh and Justice Rajesh Bindal postponed the hearing on the petition of Chauhan and two other BJP leaders till 26 March. The Supreme Court was hearing Chauhan’s appeal against the 25 October order of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, refusing to cancel the defamation case. Chauhan was advocated by senior advocate Mahesh Jethmalani, while senior advocate Kapil Sibal and advocate Sumir Sodhi advocated on behalf of Tankha.

Earlier, the apex court had stayed the series of bailable warrants against the three BJP leaders in the defamation case. The court sought a response from Tankha on the appeal of Chauhan and other BJP leaders. Jethmalani had said that the alleged statements mentioned in Tankha’s complaint were given in the House and Article 194 (2) of the Constitution. Article 194 (2) states, “Any member of the Legislature of a state will not be liable to face any action in any court in relation to any talk or votes in any committee or any of its committee.”

Refusal to cancel the defamation case

Jethmalani had argued that it was never heard that the court issued a bailable warrant in the case related to summons, in which the parties could appear through their lawyer. He requested to stop the series of bailable warrants. Sibal had said that he should have appeared before the subordinate court in the case and questioned what the subordinate court would have done if they had not appeared before the subordinate court. Jethmalani said that in 2021, the two statements described by the complainant were made on 22 and 25 December respectively in a case related to the top court order prohibiting panchayat elections in the state. The Madhya Pradesh High Court on 25 October refused to cancel the defamation case filed against former Chief Minister Shivraj, State BJP President VD Sharma and former minister Bhupendra Singh on behalf of Tankha. (With language inputs)

Also read-

‘Today is the reception of my sons, I have been going to Vanaprastha Ashram from tomorrow’, Shivraj Singh said in Parliament

‘We are not only a question of the red, discrimination of Mother India’, Shivraj said to DMK MP with folded hands

Latest india news