The Rouse Avenue court in Delhi recently reserved its order regarding the appeal of Chief Minister Atishi Marlena, who is challenging the summons issued in a defamation case filed by BJP leader Praveen Shankar Kapoor.
The court, after hearing arguments from both sides, will deliver its verdict on January 28.
Atishi’s legal team, led by senior advocate Ramesh Gupta, argued that the threshold for political defamation cases is high, given that political parties are central to public discourse.
Gupta pointed out that if Atishi’s statements were indeed defamatory, they could be considered harmful to the BJP as a party, but the party itself would have to file a complaint, not an individual like Kapoor.
He also contended that not all members of a political party could file defamation cases on behalf of the party. The core argument was that the threshold for defamation in political contexts is set very high to prevent frivolous cases.
On the other hand, Praveen Shankar Kapoor, the complainant in the case, was represented by senior advocate Ajay Burman and advocate Shoumendu Mukherjee.
Kapoor's legal team stressed that, as a long-time spokesperson of the BJP, any defamatory statement about the party would directly impact him, especially given his public position.
Kapoor’s legal team further argued that Atishi’s statements were damaging not only to the BJP but also to its individual members, and this warranted legal action.
This legal battle stems from a press conference held by Atishi on April 2, 2024, where she made serious allegations against the BJP. Atishi claimed that the BJP approached her to join the party and, if she declined, the Enforcement Directorate (ED) would arrest her.
In her speech, Atishi accused the BJP-led government at the Centre of trying to intimidate her and the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) through threats of arrest.
She also mentioned that other AAP leaders, including Raghav Chadha and Saurabh Bharadwaj, might face similar threats ahead of the general elections.
The BJP leader, in his defamation complaint, took issue with the lack of specific details in Atishi’s allegations. Kapoor’s legal team contended that the AAP leader’s statements were false, malicious, and intended to harm both the BJP’s reputation and that of its members.
They pointed out that Atishi did not provide any verifiable details or evidence to support her claim that the BJP had made such an offer to her. As a result, Kapoor's team claimed the statement was a concoction designed to tarnish the image of the BJP.
In response, Atishi’s legal team argued that the allegations were an expression of political opinion rather than an attempt to defame any individual or party. They also highlighted that the BJP could have pursued legal action on behalf of the party as a whole, not as an individual defamation case.
The court’s decision to reserve the order on January 28 means that both sides will have to wait for the final ruling on the appeal. The case highlights the complexities of defamation law, especially in the realm of politics, where statements often involve public figures and political parties.
Follow us
