New Delhi

The Supreme Court today stayed a Delhi government circular on filing of defamation cases against media houses for publishing or broadcasting news that damage the reputation of the Chief Minister, the council of ministers and the government.

A bench comprising justices Dipak Misra and P C Pant also issued notice to Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal and sought his response on a plea of senior advocate Amit Sibal that the stay on the criminal defamation proceedings against the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader be lifted.

The court asked Kejriwal to also explain why such a circular was issued by his government while expressing surprise as to how the AAP leader could have opposite views on the same issue.

“Don’t you feel that there is dichotomy between you challenging section 499 and section 500 of the Indian Penal Code relating to defamation and the circular issued by you,” the bench asked.

The bench also said it has not stayed the provisions but rather stayed the proceedings before trial court in defamation cases against the Chief Minister.

BJP leader Subramanian Swamy, Congress Vice President Rahul Gandhi and Kejriwal have challenged the constitutional validity of penal defamation laws on the ground that they are against the freedom to speech and expression.

On May 6, Delhi Government had issued a circular on filing of defamation cases against media houses for publishing or broadcasting news that damage reputation of the Chief Minister or others in the government.

Taking note of this, the bench said on one hand Kejriwal wants to lodge a defamation complaint, and on the other, he claims himself to be the sufferer.

“Though there is a stay order in favour of the petitioner but as an application for vacation of stay has been filed by the respondent no.2 (Amit Sibal), who claimed that circular dated May 6, 2015 directly contradicts the stand taken by the petitioner before the court (Supreme Court).

“We issue notice (to Kejriwal). However, as an interim measure we direct stay of the circular dated May 6, 2015 till further order of this court. Accordingly, it is stayed,” the bench said.

The court’s order came on an application filed by Sibal seeking vacation of the stay granted by the apex court on the proceedings before a trial court in a defamation case filed by him against Kejriwal for his comment.

The court listed the matter for further hearing on July 8, when it will take up the pleas in which constitutional validity of the penal provisions have been challenged by the Chief Minister.

Sibal in his application said “while the chief minister on one hand seeks setting aside of penal laws on defamation, on the other hand he has issued such a circular”.

Senior advocate Abhishek Singhvi and Siddharth Luthra, appearing for Sibal, said the “circular directly contradicts and militates against the stand taken by the Chief Minister in his petition pending before the Supreme Court”.

The counsel appearing for Kejriwal said they would take instruction on the issue raised here and file a counter affidavit.

Sibal’s counsel said, “In view of the circular, it is clear that the petition is dishonest, vexatious and frivolous.

In the light of these circumstances, the stay granted by this court on May 1, 2015 … is liable to be vacated.

“In view of the facts and circumstances, it is humbly submitted that the petitioner is not entitled to the equitable relief of stay of proceedings pending against him under the impunged provisions and grave injustice would be caused to the applicant/ respondent no. 2 if this application is not allowed.”

The court declined Sibal’s request for lifting stay and said “We are not vacating the stay order passed by this court but we are staying the circular dated May 6, 2015.”

The circular, issued by state information and publicity department, says that if any officer associated with the Delhi government feels that a published or aired item has caused damage to his or the government’s reputation, he should file a complaint with the principal secretary (home).

The circular also states that after getting a go-ahead from the director (prosecution), the matter should be referred to the law department and after taking approval from the government, a case should be filed.

Earlier, the Supreme Court had stayed proceedings in trial courts in a few criminal defamation cases against Kejriwal while deciding to hear his plea challenging “constitutional validity” of the penal provisions relating to defamation.

PTI