Congress leader Pawan Khera appears before the Assam Police Crime Branch in Guwahati on Wednesday.
| Photo Credit: ANI

Bengaluru:

Union Minister for Heavy Industries and Steel HD Kumaraswamy and his son Nikhil Kumaraswamy got relief from the Karnataka High Court in connection with the FIR registered against him based on the complaint by Lokayukta SIT ADGP M Chandrashekar.

The High Court bench passed the order on Wednesday while looking into the petition by Kumaraswamy seeking quashing of the FIR. ADGP Chandrashekhar has registered the complaint against Union Minister Kumaraswamy at Bengaluru’s Sanjaynagar Police Station.

The High Court has ordered that no coercive action be taken against him and granted him interim relief.

Senior counsel Hashmat Pasha, appearing for Kumaraswamy, argued that the police are attempting to cancel a 10-year-old anticipatory bail by reviving the case.

The High Court ruled that the FIR cannot be used to revoke old anticipatory bail. Additionally, the High Court recorded a statement from the State Public Prosecutor (SPP) that no coercive measures would be taken against Kumaraswamy in this matter.

Karnataka Police had registered an FIR against Kumaraswamy, on Tuesday as per the directions of a court.

Senior IPS officer Chandrashekar had accused Kumaraswamy of defaming and threatening him and his family.

Sanjaynagar police in Bengaluru had registered the FIR against Kumaraswamy.

The FIR is registered under Section 224 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) 2023.

The police have named Kumaraswamy’s son Nikhil Kumaraswamy as the second accused in the case.

C B Suresh Babu, the JD-S party floor leader in the Legislative Assembly is named as the third accused in the case.

The police had taken a non-cognisable miscellaneous case.

Chandrashekar had approached the court demanding registration of an FIR against Kumaraswamy.

Chandrashekar, in his complaint to the court, had alleged that he had been heading the SIT team probing a case of illegal mining in 2014 – case no. 16/2014 and after getting additional evidence in the case, the investigating team had sought sanction of prosecution from the Governor recently.

In response to this, HD Kumaraswamy held a press conference on September 28 and 29 – where the minister made malicious accusations, threatening the IPS officer and his family members.

The IPS officer, in his complaint to the court, alleged that Kumaraswamy orally threatened him that he would be shunted to another state cadre and also made ill-intended allegations against his family members.

In reply to the charges, Chandrashekar wrote a letter to his staff and refuted all allegations calling it false and malicious.

Chandrashekar concluded his letter by quoting George Bernard Shaw’s famous lines, “Never wrestle with a pig because you’ll both get dirty, and the pig likes it.”

Kumaraswamy expressed outrage on Tuesday, calling the FIR filed against him based on a complaint by a senior IPS officer, Lokayukta SIT chief, M. Chandrashekar as “ridiculous and malicious.”

Kumaraswamy responded to media questions, saying, “During this by-election, the Congress-led state government is targeting us out of sheer animosity. I will respond to this through the judiciary.”

“I have read the FIR and the complaint’s content. It is completely ridiculous and clearly malicious. The complainant has stated that I allegedly made accusations against him in a press conference and has asked for action. Did I provide false information about him? He can review my press conference video if he wants,” said the Union Minister.

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)

Hyderabad:

A special court here on Thursday issued summons to Telangana Chief Minister A Revanth Reddy asking him to appear personally before it on September 25 over a criminal defamation case filed by a BJP leader accusing him of making false and baseless allegations against the saffron party during the recent Lok Sabha election campaign.

The Special Judicial First Class Magistrate (JFCM) for Excise Cases here, after considering the documents filed by the complainant and after examining the witnesses and hearing the arguments of the counsel for the complainant, issued summons to Reddy for offences under Sections 499, 171C, 171G, 153 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 125 of the Representation of Peoples Act to appear in person before the court on September 25.

Telangana BJP General Secretary Kasam Venkateshwarlu had earlier filed a complaint in the Special JFCM for Excise cases, accusing the chief minister of making statements during an Lok Sabha election meeting in Bhadradri Kothagudem district on May 4 that the BJP, if voted to power, would change the Constitution and abolish reservations.

The petitioner claimed it was misleading and false and that the statement had defamed the party and party workers.

In the complaint, the BJP further claimed that the statements made by Reddy caused harm to the reputation of the party in the eyes of the voters, and making such “false statements with intent to unduly influence voters” amounts to election offences under the law.

After examination of the complainant and another person, and after going through the complaint and the statements and material placed before the Special JFCM for Excise cases, on August 21 it felt that a prima facie case is made out against the accused for the offence under section 499 of IPC and Section 125 of the Representation of Peoples Act.

Earlier, after the Special JFCM for Excise cases had adjourned the complaint, the BJP leader approached the Telangana High Court with a criminal petition seeking direction to the lower court to inquire into his complaint.

In June, the Telangana High Court had directed the Special Judicial First Class Magistrate (JFCM) for Excise Cases to conduct proceedings and decide the complaint expeditiously in accordance with the law.

The high court disposed of the criminal petition directing the magistrate to hear the petition on a day-to-day basis and expedite the proceedings on the complaint.

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)

New Delhi:

A court here on Monday sentenced activist Medha Patkar to five months simple imprisonment in a 23-year-old defamation case lodged against her by Delhi Lieutenant Governor V K Saxena when he headed an NGO in Gujarat.

Metropolitan Magistrate Raghav Sharma also imposed a fine of Rs 10 lakh on Ms Patkar.

The court sentenced Ms Patkar after considering the evidence before it and the fact that the case went on for over two decades.

However, the court suspended the sentence for one month to enable Ms Patkar to file an appeal against the order.

Rejecting Ms Patkar’s prayer to release her on the condition of probation, the judge said, “Considering the facts…damages, age and ailment (of the accused), I am not inclined to give excessive punishment.” The offence entailed a maximum punishment of simple imprisonment of up to two years or fine or both.

On May 24, the court had observed that Ms Patkar’s statements calling Mr Saxena a “coward” and alleging his involvement in hawala transactions were not only defamatory per se but also crafted to incite negative perceptions about him.

Also, the accusation that the complainant was “mortgaging” the people of Gujarat and their resources to foreign interests was a direct attack on his integrity and public service, it had said.

The arguments on sentencing were completed on May 30, following which the judgment on the quantum of sentence was reserved on June 7.

Ms Patkar and Mr Saxena have been locked in a legal tussle since 2000 after she filed a suit against him for publishing advertisements against her and the Narmada Bachao Andolan (NBA).

Mr Saxena, who then headed an Ahmedabad-based NGO named ‘Council for Civil Liberties’, had also filed two cases against Ms Patkar in 2001 for making derogatory remarks against him on a TV channel and issuing a defamatory press statement.

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)

Mumbai:

Maharashtra Chief Minister Eknath Shinde has issued a legal notice to Shiv Sena (UBT) leader Sanjay Raut over a “defamatory” article which claimed that Mr Shinde tried to ensure the defeat of ally NCP’s candidates in the ongoing Lok Sabha elections.

Sanjay Raut shared on X the legal notice dated May 28, adding that it was a “very interesting” and “funny political document”. Sources close to the chief minister confirmed that such a notice has been issued.

The notice said that in his column in the Shiv Sena mouthpiece ‘Saamana’ on May 26, Mr Raut made a false statement that Chief Minister Shinde spent “unlimited amount of money” and distributed crores of rupees in each constituency. The article further claimed that Mr Shinde did all this to ensure the defeat of the candidates of the Ajit Pawar-led Nationalist Congress Party, it said.

These statements were not only false but “defamatory and scandalous”, and made to mislead the people and create unrest, the notice said.

“The defamatory news article has been published by you to get name, fame and political mileage for yourself and your so-called leader Shri Uddhav Balasaheb Thackeray,” it said, asking Mr Raut to produce evidence to back his allegations.

If he could not do so, the Rajya Sabha member should apologise within three days or face criminal and civil proceedings, the notice said.

The BJP, Shinde-led Shiv Sena and Ajit Pawar-led NCP are partners in the ruling Mahayuti alliance in the state.
 

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)

New Delhi:

The Supreme Court on Monday asked Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal, who has challenged a Delhi High Court order upholding the summons issued to him as an accused in a criminal defamation case, whether he wanted to give an apology to the complainant in the matter.

On February 26, Mr Kejriwal told the Supreme Court that he made a mistake by retweeting an allegedly defamatory video circulated by YouTuber Dhruv Rathee related to the BJP IT Cell.

During the hearing on Monday, a bench of justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta was told by the counsel appearing for complainant Vikas Sankrityayan that Mr Kejriwal may issue an apology on public platforms like microblogging platform ‘X’ or Instagram.

“You tell us what you want. We can put it to the other side. We are not going to step into your shoes or the other side’s shoes,” the bench told the counsel.

The bench said the complainant can give the format of the apology to Mr Kejriwal.

“So, if you want to give an apology, you can circulate it without prejudice to your rights and contentions. Let him examine,” the bench told senior advocate Abhishek Singhvi, who was appearing for Kejriwal.

“Otherwise we will examine the legal issue whether merely re-tweeting is criminal offence or not… We may agree with you, we may agree with the other side. We will examine that,” the bench said.

When one of the lawyers sought time to take instructions, the bench said, “Show him the apology. If he agrees to it, then it is fine”.

While posting the matter for hearing in the week commencing May 13, the bench said its earlier order asking the trial court not to take up the defamation case till March 11 would continue till the next date of hearing.

On February 26, the Supreme Court, without issuing notice on Kejriwal’s plea challenging the high court order, had asked the complainant whether he wanted to close the matter in view of the petitioner accepting it was a mistake.

Singhvi had said it was a case for retweeting on social media platform ‘X’ and the complaint filed was immediately followed by recording of pre-summoning evidence.

“Thereafter, the complaint was withdrawn. When it was refiled, after nine months of the retweeting, it was suppressed that the original complaint was withdrawn,” the senior lawyer had said.

In its February 5 verdict, the high court said that reposting alleged libellous content would attract the defamation law.

It said a sense of responsibility has to be attached while retweeting content about which one does not have knowledge and added that retweeting defamatory content must invite penal, civil as well as tort action if the person retweeting it does not attach a disclaimer.

The high court, while refusing to quash the trial court’s 2019 order summoning Kejriwal, had said when a public figure tweets a defamatory post, the ramifications extend far beyond a mere whisper in someone’s ears.

It had said if the act of retweeting or reposting is allowed to be misused as it is still considered to be a vacant grey area of law, it will encourage people with ill intentions to misuse it and conveniently take a plea that they had merely retweeted a content.

The chief minister had said in the high court that the trial court failed to appreciate that his tweet was not intended or likely to harm the complainant.

Sankrityayan claimed the YouTube video titled ‘BJP IT Cell Part II’ was circulated by Rathee, who lives in Germany, “wherein a number of false and defamatory allegations were made”. 

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)