The Delhi High Court today granted exemption to journalist Swati Chaturvedi from appearing in the defamation case filed against her by BJP spokesperson Tajinder Singh Bagga..Bagga had filed a defamation case against Chaturvedi after she had posted a tweet commenting on the BJP’s move to appoint Bagga as its spokesperson. The tweet read:.“Now the man who beat up @pbhushan1 was arrested in a sexual harassment case speaks for @BJP4India. Good job.”.The first part of the tweet in question made reference to an incident in 2011, where Bagga and two others allegedly attacked advocate Prashant Bhushan in his Supreme Court chambers, as a result of which he sustained minor injuries to the head and leg. A case was subsequently filed against Bagga, and the trial is still pending..The petition filed in the Delhi High Court by Chaturvedi states that Bagga had tweeted the following after the incident:.“We hit Prashant Bhushan hard in his chamber in Supreme Court. If you will try to break my nation, I will break your heads.”.The second part of the tweet refers to the allegations of sexual harassment made against Bagga by one Dr. Jwala Gurunath. An FIR filed in this regard was later quashed by the Karnataka High Court..In his complaint, Bagga stated that the case of assault on Prashant Bhushan was sub-judice, and that he had never been accused of sexual harassment. Therefore, he filed a defamation case against Chaturvedi under Sections 499, 500 and 501 of the Indian Penal Code. In May this year, the Metropolitan Magistrate at Patiala House Courts had passed an order summoning Chaturvedi in the case..In the petition filed to quash the proceedings, Chaturvedi has stated that the tweet in question was targeted at the BJP and not respondent per se. Further, the tweet was also based on truth and was made in public interest, which are both exceptions to defamation under the IPC..Chaturvedi also claims that the case is an attempt by Bagga and the ruling party to harass her. She has been a longstanding critic of the BJP government and has written numerous articles as well as a book titled ‘I am a troll: Inside the secret world of the BJP’s digital army’, targeting Bagga and others. Thus, she contends, the respondent and his party “have an axe to grind against her”..“Thus, there is a clear reason why the respondent has chosen to target specifically the petitioner and not file any complaint or case against numerous others who have commented on his appointment as spokesperson of the BJP.”.When the petition came up for hearing today, a Single Judge Bench of Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva issued notice to Bagga, while also granting her exemption from appearance before the trial court. The matter will now be taken up on August 23..Senior Advocate Arvind Nigam and advocate Pranav Sachdeva appeared for Chaturvedi..Corrigendum: This report initially stated that the High Court had stayed the proceedings against Chaturvedi, having relied on the lawyers’ mistaken impression that the Court ordered a stay. However, on perusal of the order, it was revealed that the Court did not, in fact, order a stay. The story has been changed accordingly, and the error is deeply regretted..Read the petition filed in the Delhi High Court:.Read the order:
The Delhi High Court today granted exemption to journalist Swati Chaturvedi from appearing in the defamation case filed against her by BJP spokesperson Tajinder Singh Bagga..Bagga had filed a defamation case against Chaturvedi after she had posted a tweet commenting on the BJP’s move to appoint Bagga as its spokesperson. The tweet read:.“Now the man who beat up @pbhushan1 was arrested in a sexual harassment case speaks for @BJP4India. Good job.”.The first part of the tweet in question made reference to an incident in 2011, where Bagga and two others allegedly attacked advocate Prashant Bhushan in his Supreme Court chambers, as a result of which he sustained minor injuries to the head and leg. A case was subsequently filed against Bagga, and the trial is still pending..The petition filed in the Delhi High Court by Chaturvedi states that Bagga had tweeted the following after the incident:.“We hit Prashant Bhushan hard in his chamber in Supreme Court. If you will try to break my nation, I will break your heads.”.The second part of the tweet refers to the allegations of sexual harassment made against Bagga by one Dr. Jwala Gurunath. An FIR filed in this regard was later quashed by the Karnataka High Court..In his complaint, Bagga stated that the case of assault on Prashant Bhushan was sub-judice, and that he had never been accused of sexual harassment. Therefore, he filed a defamation case against Chaturvedi under Sections 499, 500 and 501 of the Indian Penal Code. In May this year, the Metropolitan Magistrate at Patiala House Courts had passed an order summoning Chaturvedi in the case..In the petition filed to quash the proceedings, Chaturvedi has stated that the tweet in question was targeted at the BJP and not respondent per se. Further, the tweet was also based on truth and was made in public interest, which are both exceptions to defamation under the IPC..Chaturvedi also claims that the case is an attempt by Bagga and the ruling party to harass her. She has been a longstanding critic of the BJP government and has written numerous articles as well as a book titled ‘I am a troll: Inside the secret world of the BJP’s digital army’, targeting Bagga and others. Thus, she contends, the respondent and his party “have an axe to grind against her”..“Thus, there is a clear reason why the respondent has chosen to target specifically the petitioner and not file any complaint or case against numerous others who have commented on his appointment as spokesperson of the BJP.”.When the petition came up for hearing today, a Single Judge Bench of Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva issued notice to Bagga, while also granting her exemption from appearance before the trial court. The matter will now be taken up on August 23..Senior Advocate Arvind Nigam and advocate Pranav Sachdeva appeared for Chaturvedi..Corrigendum: This report initially stated that the High Court had stayed the proceedings against Chaturvedi, having relied on the lawyers’ mistaken impression that the Court ordered a stay. However, on perusal of the order, it was revealed that the Court did not, in fact, order a stay. The story has been changed accordingly, and the error is deeply regretted..Read the petition filed in the Delhi High Court:.Read the order:
