PM diploma row: SC refuses to entertain Kejriwal’s plea towards HC order in defamation case

By PTI

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Friday refused to entertain Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal’s plea difficult the excessive courtroom order rejecting his request to remain the prison defamation proceedings filed by the Gujarat University over his remarks about Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s academic qualification.

Gujarat University Registrar Piyush Patel had filed a defamation case towards Kejriwal and AAP chief Sanjay Singh over their alleged feedback after the Gujarat High Court put aside an order of the Chief Information Commissioner for offering details about Modi’s levels to them underneath the RTI Act.

A bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and SVN Bhatti stated it isn’t issuing discover on the plea because the matter is pending earlier than the Gujarat High Court and is listed for listening to on August 29.

The bench stated the Gujarat University and Kejriwal can increase their grievances earlier than the excessive courtroom.

At the outset, senior advocate Abhishek Singhvi, showing for Kejriwal, stated the excessive courtroom had wrongly refused to grant an interim keep on the defamation proceedings towards him.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, showing for the University, stated there was suppression of details by Kejriwal.

The Gujarat High Court had on August 11 rejected Kejriwal and Sanjay Singh’s plea in search of an interim keep on the prison defamation proceedings towards them.

A Gujarat metropolitan courtroom had earlier summoned Kejriwal and Singh within the defamation case over their “sarcastic” and “derogatory” statements in reference to PM Modi’s diploma.

The matter is listed for listening to on August 31.

The two AAP leaders later filed a revision software within the classes courtroom difficult the metropolitan courtroom’s summons within the case.

However, the classes courtroom on August 7 rejected their plea for an interim keep on trial, after which they approached the Gujarat High Court.

The revision software within the Sessions Court will now be heard on September 16.

Only Kejriwal moved the highest courtroom difficult the excessive courtroom order of August 11.

According to the criticism filed by Patel, the 2 leaders made “defamatory” statements at press conferences and on Twitter handles focusing on the college over Modi’s diploma.

Their feedback focusing on the Gujarat University have been defamatory and damage the status of the college which has established its identify among the many public, the complainant stated.

“Their statements were sarcastic and intentionally made to hurt the prestige of the university,” Patel has stated in his criticism.

On March 31, the Gujarat High Court quashed a 2016 order of the Central Information Commission (CIC) which directed the Gujarat University to supply data on Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s diploma to Kejriwal, observing the AAP chief’s RTI plea seemed to be “politically vexatious and motivated” as an alternative of being primarily based on “sound public interest considerations”.

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Friday refused to entertain Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal’s plea difficult the excessive courtroom order rejecting his request to remain the prison defamation proceedings filed by the Gujarat University over his remarks about Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s academic qualification.

Gujarat University Registrar Piyush Patel had filed a defamation case towards Kejriwal and AAP chief Sanjay Singh over their alleged feedback after the Gujarat High Court put aside an order of the Chief Information Commissioner for offering details about Modi’s levels to them underneath the RTI Act.

A bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and SVN Bhatti stated it isn’t issuing discover on the plea because the matter is pending earlier than the Gujarat High Court and is listed for listening to on August 29.googletag.cmd.push(operate() googletag.show(‘div-gpt-ad-8052921-2’); );

The bench stated the Gujarat University and Kejriwal can increase their grievances earlier than the excessive courtroom.

At the outset, senior advocate Abhishek Singhvi, showing for Kejriwal, stated the excessive courtroom had wrongly refused to grant an interim keep on the defamation proceedings towards him.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, showing for the University, stated there was suppression of details by Kejriwal.

The Gujarat High Court had on August 11 rejected Kejriwal and Sanjay Singh’s plea in search of an interim keep on the prison defamation proceedings towards them.

A Gujarat metropolitan courtroom had earlier summoned Kejriwal and Singh within the defamation case over their “sarcastic” and “derogatory” statements in reference to PM Modi’s diploma.

The matter is listed for listening to on August 31.

The two AAP leaders later filed a revision software within the classes courtroom difficult the metropolitan courtroom’s summons within the case.

However, the classes courtroom on August 7 rejected their plea for an interim keep on trial, after which they approached the Gujarat High Court.

The revision software within the Sessions Court will now be heard on September 16.

Only Kejriwal moved the highest courtroom difficult the excessive courtroom order of August 11.

According to the criticism filed by Patel, the 2 leaders made “defamatory” statements at press conferences and on Twitter handles focusing on the college over Modi’s diploma.

Their feedback focusing on the Gujarat University have been defamatory and damage the status of the college which has established its identify among the many public, the complainant stated.

“Their statements were sarcastic and intentionally made to hurt the prestige of the university,” Patel has stated in his criticism.

On March 31, the Gujarat High Court quashed a 2016 order of the Central Information Commission (CIC) which directed the Gujarat University to supply data on Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s diploma to Kejriwal, observing the AAP chief’s RTI plea seemed to be “politically vexatious and motivated” as an alternative of being primarily based on “sound public interest considerations”.