Special judge acted like political analyst in defamation case against Atishi, Delhi High Court told

New Delhi: The Delhi High Court was on Monday informed by the complainant in a defamation case against Chief Minister Atishi, the special judge who rejected his case "exercised jurisdiction beyond its power" and acted like a "political analyst".

Appearing before Justice Vikas Mahajan, the counsel for complainant Praveen Shankar Kapoor sought a stay on the judge's observations and said he made Atishi a "whistleblower" despite her "per se" defamatory statements.

He argued there was "nothing perverse or illegal" in the summoning order passed by a magisterial court against the AAP leader.

Kapoor, the former media head and spokesperson of the Delhi BJP unit, alleged Atishi made "baseless allegations" in a press conference held on January 27, and on April 2, 2024, against the BJP by claiming the party approached AAP MLAs and offered them bribes to the tune of Rs 20-25 crore for switching sides.

Atishi had moved the special judge against the summons issued to her by the magisterial court.

Challenging the relief given by the special judge, Kapoor's counsel said the revisional court acted beyond its "narrow scope" of jurisdiction.

"The special judge went like a political analyst. The revisional court tried to make the accused a whistleblower. How can she be a whistleblower when she is not filing any complaint?" he asked.

The counsel argued, "She is making imputations. It is widely publicised in print and electronic media. The revisional court has gone beyond the scope of revision by going into freedom of speech." The counsel also objected to the "comparison" between the BJP and the AAP made by the judge, saying it ought to have only seen if the statements were defamatory.

The court posted the hearing on January 4.

On January 28, special judge Vishal Gogne held that the allegations made by Atishi constituted the exercise of the right to freedom of speech concerning political corruption and not defamation.

Stating that saying a big voice could not "scupper" the smaller one using the weapon of defamation, the special judge said that the pre-summoning evidence did not present adequate grounds to summon Atishi as an accused.

The trial court had remarked that Atishi was in the nature of a whistleblower and couldn't be treated as having acted to defame the BJP and Kapoor's complaint was "an attempt to defeat criminal investigation and suppress the freedom of speech as well as the right to know".

Kapoor had moved the high court on January 30, and said in his plea that "the Special Judge has ventured into political adventurism akin to a political discourse by attempting to determine who is a bigger / smaller political entity, which was not at all and never be the scope of adjudication in revision proceedings".

"The Ld. Special Judge did not even permit the Complainant to have a trial in order to make good his allegations..The impugned Order needs to be quashed as there are various legal infirmities in the said Order. The Ld. Special Judge (MP/MLA Cases) has transgressed from the criminal complaint and has dealt with issues which are of little significance to the case in hand," the plea stated.