National

Arun Jaitley And Ram Jethmalani Spar In Defamation Case Against Arvind Kejriwal

Jethmalani retorted by telling Jaitley that “it was your personal feeling about your greatness, that it can't be estimated in terms of fiscal measure”.

Advertisement

Arun Jaitley And Ram Jethmalani Spar In Defamation Case Against Arvind Kejriwal
info_icon

In the hearing of a defamation case involving Delhi CM Arvind Kejriwal, former BJP leader and senior advocate Ram Jethmalani took pot-shots at Finance Minister Arun Jaitley in the Delhi High Court today.

Jaitley and Jethmalani found themselves engaged in an open court over the defamation case filed by the Union Minister against Kejriwal. The former had taken Kejriwal to court after he accused Jaitley of mismanaging the DDCA as its President.

A report in NDTV elaborates on the exchange between the lawyers in court, in response to Jaitley telling the court that the damage to his “reputation was so enormous that it was considered unquantifiable.”

Advertisement

Jethmalani reportedly kept going after Jaitley asking why the suit was filed in the first place and asked him 50 questions.

The former BJP member is said to have asked Jaitley how Kejriwal’s comments merited a case against him aside from “value that you put on yourself.”

Jethmalani said that Jaitley had not suffered any monetary losses because of the statement and its why he deemed it “unquantifiable”.

“The loss of my reputation has been partly quantified in terms of money. Loss of a reputation causes mental distress to the person defamed, which it did in my case,” Jaitley reportedly replied.

Advertisement

The Union Minister went on to say that when his “stature, background and reputation” were considered, the loss was so enormous that it could not be quantified.

Jethmalani retorted by telling Jaitley that “it was your personal feeling about your greatness, that it can't be estimated in terms of fiscal measure”.

Jaitley responded by saying that it were the opinions of his family, friends and well-wishers who had expressed the same to him. 

Tags

    Advertisement

    Advertisement

    Advertisement

    Advertisement

    Advertisement

    Advertisement