A Delhi court on Monday framed defamation charges against Aam Aadmi Party leader Arvind Kejriwal in a case filed by Delhi chief minister Sheila Dikshit’s political secretary for his alleged remarks against her during power tariff hike protests in October 2012.
Chief metropolitan magistrate (CMM) <span data-style="border-bottom: 1px solid #0000FF !important;text-decoration:underline !important;color:#0000FF !important">Sanjay Bansal said prima facie defamation charges are made out against <span data-style="border-bottom: 1px solid #0000FF !important;text-decoration:underline !important;color:#0000FF !important">Kejriwal and put him on trial after he pleaded not guilty.
The court fixed 18 January, 2014, for recording of evidence in the case. <span data-style="border-bottom: 1px solid #0000FF !important;text-decoration:underline !important;color:#0000FF !important">Complainant Pawan Khera, officer on special duty and political secretary of Dikshit, had filed the defamation case against Kejriwal saying he had used ‘false and filthy’ language against the chief minister in a television show.
While framing defamation charges against Kejriwal, the court said the AAP leader had defamed Khera and he spoke the defamatory word with an intention to harm his reputation.
‘By use of the said word..., you defamed complainant Khera who has been working as OSD/Political Secretary to Sheila Dikshit. You spoke the said word... intending to harm, or knowing or having reason to believe that such imputations will harm the reputation of complainant Khera and thus you defamed complainant and thereby you committed offence punishable under Section 500 (defamation) of the IPC and within my cognisance.
‘Show cause why you should not be punished for the offence or do you have any defence to make,’ the CMM said.
While pleading not guilty, Kejriwal said Khera is not an aggrieved person and the complaint against him is false.
‘The complainant is not an aggrieved person and has no locus standi to file this complaint. The complainant is neither <span data-style="border-bottom: 1px solid #0000FF !important;text-decoration:underline !important;color:#0000FF !important">a member of Congress Party nor has he disclosed in clear terms his relationship with Sheila Dikshit. There are proofs available in public domain showing that electricity distribution companies were given unexplainable benefits.
‘My accusation is well covered under exceptions first, second, third and ninth of Section 499 of the IPC. I have placed on record my detailed application in my defence. I also seek leave of this court to take any other defence available to me. This complaint against me is false,’ Kejriwal said.
The court had on 26 October said it would decide after trial the plea of Kejriwal questioning the locus standi of Dikshit’s political secretary in filing the defamation case.
The court had said that without framing notice of accusation and without conducting trial, no decision can be made on the issue of locus standi of Khera.
The AAP leader had, in his plea, said <span data-style="border-bottom: 1px solid #0000FF !important;text-decoration:underline !important;color:#0000FF !important">Khera has no locus standi to file the case as he had not said anything against the political secretary. Moreover, only an aggrieved person can file a defamation complaint, he had said.
<span data-style="border-bottom: 1px solid #0000FF !important;text-decoration:underline !important;color:#0000FF !important">The AAP convener is accused of defaming Dikshit by making ‘baseless’ allegations against her last year during <span data-style="border-bottom: 1px solid #0000FF !important;text-decoration:underline !important;color:#0000FF !important">several protests on power tariff hike.
Chief metropolitan magistrate (CMM) <span data-style="border-bottom: 1px solid #0000FF !important;text-decoration:underline !important;color:#0000FF !important">Sanjay Bansal said prima facie defamation charges are made out against <span data-style="border-bottom: 1px solid #0000FF !important;text-decoration:underline !important;color:#0000FF !important">Kejriwal and put him on trial after he pleaded not guilty.
The court fixed 18 January, 2014, for recording of evidence in the case. <span data-style="border-bottom: 1px solid #0000FF !important;text-decoration:underline !important;color:#0000FF !important">Complainant Pawan Khera, officer on special duty and political secretary of Dikshit, had filed the defamation case against Kejriwal saying he had used ‘false and filthy’ language against the chief minister in a television show.
While framing defamation charges against Kejriwal, the court said the AAP leader had defamed Khera and he spoke the defamatory word with an intention to harm his reputation.
‘By use of the said word..., you defamed complainant Khera who has been working as OSD/Political Secretary to Sheila Dikshit. You spoke the said word... intending to harm, or knowing or having reason to believe that such imputations will harm the reputation of complainant Khera and thus you defamed complainant and thereby you committed offence punishable under Section 500 (defamation) of the IPC and within my cognisance.
‘Show cause why you should not be punished for the offence or do you have any defence to make,’ the CMM said.
While pleading not guilty, Kejriwal said Khera is not an aggrieved person and the complaint against him is false.
‘The complainant is not an aggrieved person and has no locus standi to file this complaint. The complainant is neither <span data-style="border-bottom: 1px solid #0000FF !important;text-decoration:underline !important;color:#0000FF !important">a member of Congress Party nor has he disclosed in clear terms his relationship with Sheila Dikshit. There are proofs available in public domain showing that electricity distribution companies were given unexplainable benefits.
‘My accusation is well covered under exceptions first, second, third and ninth of Section 499 of the IPC. I have placed on record my detailed application in my defence. I also seek leave of this court to take any other defence available to me. This complaint against me is false,’ Kejriwal said.
The court had on 26 October said it would decide after trial the plea of Kejriwal questioning the locus standi of Dikshit’s political secretary in filing the defamation case.
The court had said that without framing notice of accusation and without conducting trial, no decision can be made on the issue of locus standi of Khera.
The AAP leader had, in his plea, said <span data-style="border-bottom: 1px solid #0000FF !important;text-decoration:underline !important;color:#0000FF !important">Khera has no locus standi to file the case as he had not said anything against the political secretary. Moreover, only an aggrieved person can file a defamation complaint, he had said.
<span data-style="border-bottom: 1px solid #0000FF !important;text-decoration:underline !important;color:#0000FF !important">The AAP convener is accused of defaming Dikshit by making ‘baseless’ allegations against her last year during <span data-style="border-bottom: 1px solid #0000FF !important;text-decoration:underline !important;color:#0000FF !important">several protests on power tariff hike.