look news india
Arvind Kejriwal, who is facing defamation charges for making controversial remarks on PM Modi's educational degree, has received a setback from the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has rejected his petition. The trial court had issued summons to Kejriwal in the defamation case filed by Gujarat University. Gujarat University Registrar Piyush Patel filed a defamation suit against Arvind Kejriwal and Sanjay Singh's comments in the lawsuit.
To get it cancelled, Kejriwal first approached the High Court and then the Supreme Court. The High Court refused to stay the summons of the trial court. After this Kejriwal approached the Supreme Court. Earlier, Sanjay Singh had also approached the Supreme Court for relief in the matter, but the Supreme Court had rejected his petition in April this year. Now Kejriwal's application has been rejected by the Supreme Court. If he does not get relief from here, then Kejriwal will have to appear in the trial court.
What happened during the hearing?
During the hearing, SG Tushar Mehta said that Arvind Kejriwal and Sanjay Singh can say anything about anyone. He also spoke against late Arun Jaitley. The Supreme Court said that this is all politics. unless otherwise stated. The bench of Justice SVN Bhati and Justice Hrishikesh Roy said that we have considered such cases earlier also. Sanjay Singh had also filed a similar petition but the Supreme Court rejected it. On this Singhvi said that let me present the chart (of statements). Singh's statement was different. This is a criminal matter. The Supreme Court said that we cannot hear this petition.
What did the Supreme Court say in the order?
The Supreme Court said that we heard the senior lawyers of all the parties. Dr. Although Singhvi has made separate arguments in the context of CrPC and constitutional provisions and precedents, it is observed that the complaint filed by Gujarat University is relevant not only to the present petitioner Kejriwal, but also to Sanjay Singh, whose The petition has been rejected. This court rejected it on 8 April. We must remain consistent with that vision. In view of that view, we cannot entertain the present petition. In view of this the application is rejected. We have not expressed anything on the merits of the case and the dispute has been left open.