New Delhi, Apr 23 (UNI) The Supreme Court on Wednesday advised Union Agriculture Minister Shivraj Singh Chouhan and Congress Rajya Sabha MP Vivek Tankha to amicably resolve the defamation case filed by Tankha against the senior BJP leader.
The top court expressed a strong preference for an out-of-court settlement between the political rivals over the prolonged legal tussle.
A bench comprising Justice M M Sundresh and Justice Rajesh Bindal, while hearing Chouhan’s appeal against a Madhya Pradesh High Court order that declined to quash the defamation proceedings, urged both parties to explore reconciliation.
“Please do not make us hear this case. Let us close it. Both of you sit together and settle this,” the bench remarked, addressing Senior Advocates Mahesh Jethmalani and Kapil Sibal, representing Chouhan and Tankha respectively.
Sibal, speaking for Tankha, said his client was open to a settlement if Chouhan expressed regret. However, Jethmalani questioned the necessity of such a gesture if no wrongdoing had occurred, though he acknowledged his willingness to discuss the matter with Sibal.
The proceedings, conducted via video conferencing, concluded with the bench deferring further hearing to May 21.
The Top Court also recorded Sibal’s assurance that Tankha would not oppose Chouhan’s application for exemption from personal appearance in the trial court on the next hearing date.
The Supreme Court had earlier stayed the execution of bailable warrants issued against Chouhan, BJP state president V D Sharma, and former minister Bhupendra Singh co-accused in the case.
The defamation suit stems from allegations made by the BJP leaders that Tankha had opposed OBC reservation during the 2021 panchayat elections in Madhya Pradesh, a claim Tankha says was part of a “coordinated, malicious and false campaign” to tarnish his image.
Tankha’s complaint seeks Rs 10 crore in damages and initiation of criminal defamation proceedings under Section 500 of the IPC. The special court in Jabalpur took cognizance of the complaint on January 20, 2024, and summoned the BJP leaders.
Jethmalani has argued that the statements in question, dated December 22 and 25, 2021, were made on the floor of the House and thus protected under Article 194(2) of the Constitution, which grants immunity to legislators for anything said in the legislature or its committees.
The Supreme Court’s push for a negotiated settlement highlights its preference to resolve politically sensitive defamation cases outside the courtroom, fostering dialogue over litigation.
UNI SNG CS