Supreme Court Advocates for Childcare and Feeding Rooms in Public Spaces

Image
Supreme Court Advocates for Childcare and Feeding Rooms in Public Spaces The Supreme Court of India has suggested that the Union Government develop a comprehensive policy addressing the construction of feeding rooms and childcare facilities  in public places. This move aims to ensure that nursing mothers and their children can access basic amenities in a dignified and private manner, reinforcing their fundamental rights under the Indian Constitution. SC Encourages Policy Formulation A bench comprising Justice BV Nagarathna  and Justice N Kotiswar Singh  highlighted the absence of a structured framework to address this pressing issue. The court advised the Centre to propose a policy that could then be implemented across the states, scheduling the next hearing for December 10, 2024.   The apex court emphasized that before issuing formal directions, it was crucial to understand the Centre’s perspective on implementing the petitioner’s demand for childcare and feedi...
Post a Comment

Defamation Case Against Delhi CM Atishi Marlena, Arvind Kejriwal Set for Arguments on Charge

Defamation Case Against Delhi CM Atishi Marlena, 

Arvind Kejriwal Set for Arguments on Charge



In a significant development, the Rouse Avenue Court in Delhi has scheduled the hearing of a defamation case against Delhi Chief Minister Atishi Marlena, former CM Arvind Kejriwal, and other Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leaders for October 3, 2024. The case, filed by BJP leader Rajeev Babbar in 2020, accuses the AAP leaders of making defamatory statements against the BJP, allegedly damaging the party’s reputation.


Background of the Defamation Case


The defamation case was initiated by Rajeev Babbar, a BJP leader from Delhi, who alleged that Arvind Kejriwal, Atishi Marlena, and other senior AAP leaders falsely accused the BJP of orchestrating the removal of 30 lakh names from the Delhi electoral rolls. These voters, Babbar contended, were primarily from the Baniya, Muslim, and Poorvanchali communities. The accusations, made during the run-up to the 2020 Delhi Assembly elections, sought to paint the BJP as responsible for voter suppression, according to the complaint.


Babbar’s defamation suit argues that the voters' list is under the jurisdiction of the Election Commission of India (ECI), not any political party. He claims the statements made by the AAP leaders were aimed at maligning the BJP's image and damaging its credibility among key voter groups, causing "irreparable harm" to the party’s reputation.


Court Proceedings and Previous Orders


In February 2020, the Delhi High Court had stayed the trial court proceedings, providing interim relief to Arvind Kejriwal and the other AAP leaders. The AAP leaders had challenged the defamation case on the grounds that the complaint was vague and did not specifically mention the "person aggrieved," a crucial element in defamation complaints.


However, in a recent ruling, Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta of the Delhi High Court dismissed the AAP leaders’ appeal, paving the way for the trial court to proceed with the case. The High Court emphasized the right of citizens to truthful and accurate information, criticizing the political mudslinging often seen in electoral politics. Justice Mendiratta made it clear that defamatory statements aimed at tarnishing the image of political parties for undue political advantage would not be tolerated.


Arguments on Charge Scheduled for October 3


The case is now set for arguments on charge on October 3, 2024, where the accused leaders, including Atishi Marlena, Arvind Kejriwal, Sushil Kumar Gupta, and Manoj Kumar, are expected to appear before the court. Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (ACJM) Tanya Bamniyal has issued a notice to the respondents, asking for their presence and allowing the case to proceed.


The Delhi High Court has vacated its interim order that stayed the trial court proceedings, meaning the summons issued to the AAP leaders by the trial court are now in effect.


BJP’s Allegations and AAP’s Defense


Babbar’s defamation suit contends that the allegations made by AAP were false and designed to vilify the BJP, particularly with the claim that the party manipulated the voters' list to exclude key communities that were likely to vote against them. The voters’ list, Babbar maintained, is strictly the domain of the Election Commission, and the BJP had no role in altering it.


Arvind Kejriwal and other AAP leaders, on the other hand, have maintained that the defamation suit is politically motivated and intended to stifle political criticism. They have argued that the complaint lacks specific details and does not establish the necessary elements of a defamation case.


Previous Defamation Cases Against AAP Leaders


This isn’t the first time Atishi Marlena or other AAP leaders have faced defamation charges. Earlier in July 2024, Atishi was granted bail by the Rouse Avenue Court in a separate defamation case filed by BJP leader Praveen Shankar Kapoor over allegations of poaching AAP legislators. Defamation suits have become a recurring legal battle for AAP, which has often been accused by political opponents of using inflammatory rhetoric.


Legal Implications and Next Steps


The upcoming hearing will be crucial in determining whether there is sufficient ground to frame charges against Kejriwal, Atishi, and other AAP leaders. If the trial court decides to move forward with framing charges, the case could have significant political and legal consequences for AAP, especially as the party prepares for upcoming electoral challenges.


The defamation case also highlights the growing trend of using legal mechanisms to address political disputes, with courts increasingly playing a role in settling the line between free speech and defamation in the political arena.


Conclusion


The defamation case against Arvind Kejriwal and Atishi Marlena is a critical legal test for the Aam Aadmi Party and its leaders, as they navigate both political and judicial challenges. The court’s final decision could have far-reaching implications for political discourse in India, especially in the context of the right to free speech and the responsibility to avoid defamatory claims.

Location: Pune, Maharashtra, India

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Supreme Court Reinforces Due Process: Curbing “Bulldozer Justice” with Strict Guidelines

Image
Supreme Court Reinforces Due Process: Curbing “Bulldozer Justice” with Strict Guidelines Background In a significant judgment, the Supreme Court of India has set out guidelines to curb arbitrary demolitions, commonly referred to as "bulldozer justice." This term has emerged from instances where properties of individuals accused of crimes have been demolished without following due legal process. The ruling responds to several petitions highlighting the destruction of residential and commercial properties without prior notice, which, according to petitioners, targets marginalized and minority communities. Key Principles Addressed The Supreme Court’s decision rests on critical constitutional principles, particularly the rule of law, separation of powers, and protection of individual rights . The Court emphasized that no person should be punished without due process and that arbitrary action by the executive undermines citizens’ trust in the justice system. Justice Gavai, in del...
Read more

Delhi High Court Grants Bail to Former Bank Manager Accused of Defrauding Woman of ₹13 Crores

Image
Delhi High Court Grants Bail to Former Bank Manager  Accused of Defrauding Woman of ₹13 Crores  The Delhi High Court has granted bail to Varun Vashista , a former bank manager accused of embezzling over ₹13 crores from a customer’s account while working at ICICI Bank's Vikas Puri branch. The bail was approved by Justice Amit Mahajan on November 12, 2024, after considering the evidence and facts of the case.   Details of the Case The allegations against Vashista stem from his role as a branch manager. The complainant and her husband had entrusted him with managing their investments, amounting to ₹13.5 crores, between 2019 and 2023.   The complainant discovered in January 2024 that nearly ₹12 crores had been **siphoned off** from her account. Key allegations include:   - Creation of Fake Fixed Deposits: The accused reportedly created fraudulent fixed deposit accounts in the complainant’s name.   - Misappropriation of Funds: Funds were tr...
Read more

Equality Before Law

Image
                            Equality Before Law                                                   Introduction The rule of law was firstly introduced by A.V. Dicey in  his book "The Constitution Of England" in which there is rule which only prevails is law in which all are equal. In simple word if any wrong is being done which is not justifiable  by law committed by anyone that may be president, prime minister, or any individual are punishable because there is supremacy of law. Supremacy of law means the government which is power or the people who elected the government all will be treated equally before law.  Article 14 The Indian Constitution 1949, Article 14 guarantees "Equality before law The State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the...
Read more