The sessions court upheld a trial court order refusing separate trials for Kejriwal and Singh, observing they were "animated by a common purpose" in making the remarks.
The court found a prima facie case of defamation under Section 500 IPC.
The remarks were made through press conferences and social media and allegedly harmed the university’s reputation.
A sessions court here has dismissed pleas by AAP leaders Arvind Kejriwal and Sanjay Singh seeking separate trials in a criminal defamation case arising from their remarks on PM Narendra Modi’s educational degree, observing that they appeared to be "animated by a common purpose".
Additional Sessions Judge M P Purohit on Monday rejected the revision applications filed by former Delhi chief minister Kejriwal and Rajya Sabha member Singh, which challenged a trial court order refusing their request for separate trials and sought quashing of those orders.
The defamation case was filed by Gujarat University over what it described as "sarcastic and derogatory" statements allegedly made by the two leaders against the institution in connection with Modi’s degree.
In rejecting the pleas, the court noted that both accused made the statements on April 1 and 2, 2023, while belonging to the same political party, and appeared to be "engaged in one transaction, animated by a common purpose,” with continuity in their actions.
Kejriwal and Singh had contended that they could not be tried together as the allegations against them were distinct and related to different dates. They argued that the trial court’s order rejecting their plea was illegal and warranted reconsideration.
The court, however, held that a prima facie case under Section 500 (defamation) of the Indian Penal Code was made out against them on a complaint lodged by Gujarat University registrar Piyush Patel.
According to the complaint, the remarks were made in April 2023 after the Gujarat High Court set aside an order of the Chief Information Commissioner directing disclosure of Modi’s degree.
The alleged defamatory comments were delivered at press conferences and posted on social media platforms, including X (formerly Twitter), and were aimed at Gujarat University.
The complainant claimed the remarks harmed the university’s prestige, which it has built among the public, alleging that the statements were sarcastic and deliberately intended to damage its image, and were widely circulated through the media and social media with the same intent.
