Delhi: A sessions court has refused to grant separate trials to Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leaders Arvind Kejriwal and Sanjay Singh in a criminal defamation case linked to their remarks on Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s educational qualifications. The court ruled that both leaders acted with a shared intent and cannot be tried independently.
The order was passed by Additional Sessions Judge M P Purohit, who dismissed the revision petitions filed by former Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal and Rajya Sabha MP Sanjay Singh. The two leaders had challenged an earlier trial court decision that denied their request for splitting the proceedings and sought to have the orders set aside.
The defamation case was initiated by Gujarat University, which accused the AAP leaders of making sarcastic and disparaging comments that allegedly harmed the institution’s reputation. The controversy arose after the Gujarat High Court overturned a Central Information Commission directive that had asked the university to disclose records related to Prime Minister Modi’s degree.
According to the court, the statements made by Kejriwal and Singh in early April 2023 were not isolated incidents. The judge observed that both leaders, belonging to the same political party, made the remarks in close succession and appeared to be part of a single chain of events. The court noted that their actions reflected continuity and were driven by a common objective, making separate trials unnecessary.
The accused leaders had argued that the allegations against them differed in nature and timing, claiming that joint proceedings would be legally flawed. However, the court found no merit in this contention, stating that a prima facie case of criminal defamation under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code was established.
The complaint, filed by Gujarat University Registrar Piyush Patel, alleged that the remarks were made during press interactions and on social media platforms, including X, and were widely circulated with the intention of undermining the university’s standing. The complainant maintained that the comments were deliberately crafted to damage the credibility of an academic institution with a long-standing public reputation.
