NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court has issued a notice to Chief Minister Atishi in response to a petition filed by BJP leader Praveen Shankar Kapoor, challenging a trial court decision to quash a defamation case against her.
Justice Vikas Mahajan, after hearing arguments from Senior Advocate Ajay Burman representing Kapoor, said the case required judicial consideration. The court has sought a response from the Chief Minister through all permissible legal channels and scheduled the next hearing for April 30.
Kapoor’s petition stems from a trial court ruling that had set aside the summons issued to Atishi in a defamation complaint. The initial case was based on allegations made by Atishi and the erstwhile Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal during a press conference, where they accused the BJP of attempting to bribe AAP MLAs to switch parties. The allegations were also amplified via Atishi’s social media posts.
Burman, along with a team of advocates including Neeraj, Pavan Narang, Satya Ranjan Swain, Shoumendu Mukherji, and Punit Dhawan, argued that the revision court overstepped its jurisdiction by calling for a police status report on a separate complaint filed by Delhi BJP chief Virender Sachdeva before dismissing the defamation case.
The defense contended that the court’s observations resembled political commentary rather than a legal review.
Kapoor’s legal team further argued that Atishi had not provided any evidence to substantiate her claims. They emphasised that if she were a genuine whistleblower, she should have filed a formal complaint or disclosed her sources. Instead, she made public statements that, according to the petitioner, were defamatory.
The petition also highlighted that the magistrate had initially issued summons after a detailed review of the complaint. The revision court’s reliance on Supreme Court precedents in similar defamation cases was termed as a “misinterpretation” by Kapoor’s counsel.
Kapoor’s plea also stated that defamation against a political party directly impacts its members, making him an “aggrieved person” under the law.
He argued that freedom of speech does not extend to making baseless allegations without evidence, as reputation is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution.