Don't subject Shivraj Singh Chouhan to bailable warrant in defamation case: SC

The Supreme Court on Monday stayed the execution of a bailable warrant against Union agriculture minister Shivraj Singh Chouhan and two other BJP leaders in a defamation case filed by Congress Rajya Sabha MP and senior advocate Vivek Tankha.

A bench of justices Hrishikesh Roy and S.V.N Bhatti sought Tankha's response on a plea of by Chouhan and others challenging the 25 October order of the Madhya Pradesh High Court refusing to quash the defamation case.

The bench said, "The execution of bailable warrants against the petitioners shall not be executed subject to their effective participation in the proceedings before the court in the case."

Senior advocate Mahesh Jethmalani, appearing for Chouhan and others, said the purported statements mentioned in the complaint by Tankha were made on the floor of the house and were covered by Article 194 (2) of the Constitution.

Article 194 (2) states, "No member of the Legislature of a State shall be liable to any proceedings in any court in respect of anything said or any vote given by him in the Legislature or any committee thereof, and no person shall be so liable in respect of the publication by or under the authority of a House of such a Legislature of any report, paper, votes or proceedings."

Jethmalani submitted that it was unheard of for a bailable warrant to be issued by a court in a summons case, when the parties could appear through their counsel.

On 25 October, the high court had refused to quash the defamation case lodged by Tankha against former Madhya Pradesh chief minister Chouhan, BJP state president V.D. Sharma, and former minister Bhupendra Singh.

In his complaint to the trial court, Tankha had said defamatory statements were made in the run-up to Panchayat elections in the state in 2021 by Chouhan and two others against him in print and visual media, and proceedings pertaining to a matter on Panchayat elections heard by the Supreme Court and high court had been "propagandized".

Tankha, who appeared for the petitioner in the matter before the SC in 2021, claimed that during the hearing, he had neither argued the issue with regard to OBC reservations, nor made any pleading about it.

However, after the SC's 17 December 2021 order, Tankha alleged that the petitioners "launched a coordinated, malicious, false and defamatory campaign against him through scandalising the proceedings of the Supreme Court and the High Court in print and visual media", wherein the "complainant is being targeted as the one who is against OBC reservations".

Tankha also claimed that the statements were false and designed to tarnish his reputation, resulting in significant public criticism.

On 20 January this year, a special court in Jabalpur registered the defamation case against the three BJP leaders under IPC Section 500, summoning them to court. After the complainant (Tankha) moved the trial court, the petitioners approached the high court against the registration/cognizance of the complainant.

With PTI inputs