Court rejects Kejriwal, Singh's pleas for separate trials in PM degree defamation case

A sessions court here has rejected pleas of AAP leaders Arvind Kejriwal and Sanjay Singh for separation of trial in a criminal defamation case over their remarks on PM Narendra Modi’s educational degree, noting they appeared to be "animated by a common purpose" Additional Sessions Judge M P Purohit on Monday dismissed the revision applications filed by former Delhi chief minister Kejriwal and Rajya Sabha member Singh, who challenged the trial court’s order that had rejected their request for separate trials, and requested to quash the orders. Gujarat University had filed the defamation case over what it termed "sarcastic and derogatory" statements made by the two AAP leaders against the varsity in connection with Modi’s degree. While rejecting the pleas, the court observed that both accused made the statements on April 1 and 2, 2023, as members of the same political party and appeared to be "engaged in one transaction, animated by a common purpose,” with continuity in their actions. The two leaders had argued that they could not be tried together as the accusations against them were distinct, and even the dates of the alleged incidents were different. They submitted that the trial court’s order rejecting their pleas was illegal and deserved reconsideration.

The court, however, noted that prima facie a case under Section 500 (defamation) of the Indian Penal Code was made out against them on a complaint filed by Gujarat University registrar Piyush Patel. Kejriwal and Singh allegedly made the comments in April 2023 after the Gujarat High Court set aside the Chief Information Commissioner’s order directing the disclosure of PM Modi’s degree. The alleged defamatory remarks were made during press conferences and on social media platforms, including X (formerly Twitter), targeting Gujarat University. The complainant stated that the remarks hurt the prestige of Gujarat University, which has established its reputation among the public. The statements were sarcastic and deliberately intended to damage the university’s image, and were widely shared through the media and social media with the same intent, he alleged.