Delhi HC Seeks Kejriwal’s Response On Jaitley’s Fresh Defamation Suit:- Over the fresh defamation suit of Rs 10 crore, filed by Union Minister, Arun Jaitley, the Delhi High Court sought the response of Arvind Kejriwal.

The defamation suit was filed over the use of an objectionable word by the Delhi CM’s lawyer, Ram Jethmalani. Kejriwal was issued the notice by the Joint Registrar Pankaj Gupta. Gupta further asked him to respond why the defamation proceedings should not be initiated against him. Gupta who presides over the procedural aspects of a civil suit before it is heard by a court, fixed July 26 as the next date of hearing, by when the Chief Minister has to file his response.

The second defamation suit was filed by the Union Minister after Jethmalani abused him in open court during the proceedings of another defamation suit.

Jaitley holds twin portfolios of Finance and Defence

Delhi High Court Seeks Kejriwal’s Reply on Fresh Defamation Suit by Jaitley

During the cross examination of the Union Minister that was held on May 17, before Joint Registrar in the Delhi High Court, Jethmalani had used a term Jaitley had found objectionable. The remarks were made by Jethmalani a day after Justice Manmohan, who was hearing a connected matter, had termed as “scandalous”.

Jaitley, represented by senior advocate Sandeep Sethi, termed the word as not only “false, baseless, malicious and abusive, but is per se defamatory”. Sethi said Jaitley was “subjected to numerous questions, terminologies/statements that are ex-facie abusive, malicious, offensive, irrelevant and slanderous”. The second law suit filed through advocate Manik Dogra said, “Clearly, the defendant (Kejriwal) has brazenly and with a malafide intent to cause further prejudice, damage and loss to the name, reputation and credibility of plaintiff (Jaitley) has deliberately used the terminology against him.”

The suit stated that the union minister maintained a reputation of probity and honesty. He even had sacrificed large professional earnings, in order to undertake public service. “These per se defamatory statements made on specific and categorical instructions of the defendant are politically motivated to cause serious damages to the reputation of the Plaintiff in an entirely irreversible manner.”

The suit said, “As such, the defendant has made himself liable for irreversible and uncountable damage caused to the plaintiff and is liable to compensate the plaintiff by a sum of Rs 10 crore.”

Meanwhile, Jethmalani, had told the Joint Registrar that he used such words against Jaitley during the proceedings on the instructions of Kejriwal. The lawyer was expelled from the BJP for six years in 2013. However, the advocate on record for Kejriwal, Anupam Srivastav had submitted that there was no instruction on the use of the word by the Chief Minister.

Following the enraged arguments between the lawyers of Jaitley and Kejriwal, the proceedings of the court however ended abruptly. Jaitley had warned Jethmalani then that he would aggravate the charges against Kejriwal. The  cross-examination of the senior BJP leader remained indecisive and will now take place on July 28 and July 31.

Jaitley was charged of corruption by the AAP leaders, when he was the President of the Delhi and District Cricket Association (DDCA). He served the post from 2000 to 2013.

In December 2015, Jaitley who had refuted all the allegations leveled by the AAP leaders had filed a civil defamation suit seeking Rs 10 crore damages from Kejriwal and the other five AAP leaders. Jaitley claimed that the AAP leaders had made wrong and defamatory statements in the DDCA case, thereby damaging his reputation.

Over the alleged irregularities and financial bungling in the DDCA, the AAP leaders had allegedly attacked Jaitley and some of his family members on the social media. Raghav Chadha, Kumar Vishwas, Ashutosh, Sanjay Singh and Deepak Bajpai, are the five accused in the first defamation case.

The Union Minister also filed a separate criminal defamation case in the trial court against the AAP leaders, apart from the civil defamation case.

SUPRAJA