Congress MP Tankha has claimed that Chouhan, BJP state president V D Sharma, and former minister Bhupendra Singh executed a “coordinated, malicious, false and defamatory” campaign against him for political gain by accusing him of opposing OBC reservation during the 2021 panchayat elections in Madhya Pradesh.
“Please refrain from bringing this case before us. Let’s close it. Both of you should meet and find a resolution,” a bench comprising Justices M M Sundresh and Rajesh Bindal suggested to senior advocates Mahesh Jethmalani and Kapil Sibal, who represented Chouhan and Tankha, respectively.
The apex court was reviewing Chouhan’s appeal against the Madhya Pradesh High Court’s decision last year that declined to dismiss the defamation case. On Wednesday, the bench recommended that both senior advocates negotiate a settlement. “If he (Chouhan) is willing to express regret, I am open to resolving the defamation case,” Sibal stated.
Read more: Supreme Court exempts Shivraj Singh Chouhan from personal appearance in defamation case
“Why should the minister express regret if he has done nothing wrong?” Jethmalani responded, indicating he has no issue discussing the case with Sibal. The bench, conducting proceedings via video conferencing, postponed the hearing to May 21.
The bench noted Sibal’s assertion that Tankha won’t oppose Chouhan’s request in the trial court for exemption from personal appearance at the next hearing. Previously, it had extended its order exempting Chouhan from appearing personally before the trial court in relation to the defamation case filed by Tankha.
Earlier, the top court had stayed the execution of bailable warrants against the three BJP leaders in the defamation matter. It sought Tankha’s response regarding Chouhan and the other BJP leaders’ appeal. Jethmalani argued that the comments referenced in Tankha’s complaint were made during a legislative session and fell under 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.”
Read more: Dettol takes dermatologist, influencers to Delhi High Court over ‘defamatory’ podcast
It was unprecedented, Jethmalani contended, for a court to issue a bailable warrant in a summons case when parties could appear through their attorneys. He thus requested a stay on the bailable warrant’s execution. Sibal emphasized that they should have shown up in the trial court, questioning what actions the court would take if they failed to appear.
Jethmalani pointed out that the two statements deemed defamatory by complainant Tankha were made on December 22 and 25, 2021, pertaining to a Supreme Court order halting the panchayat elections in the state. On October 25 of last year, the high court declined to quash the defamation case filed by Tankha against the BJP leaders.
In his trial court complaint, Tankha asserted that defamatory remarks were made leading up to the panchayat elections in 2021. He alleged that subsequent to the December 17, 2021, order from the apex court, the BJP leaders claimed he had opposed OBC reservation in local body polls, damaging his reputation.
Tankha sought ₹10 crore in compensation and initiated criminal defamation proceedings against the BJP leaders. On January 20, 2024, a special court in Jabalpur agreed to investigate the defamation case against the three BJP leaders under Section 500 (punishment for defamation) of the IPC and summoned them.
Read more: Move sessions court to appear virtually in defamation case: Delhi HC to Medha Patkar
