Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal finds himself entangled in a defamation case over the retweeting of a video titled ‘BJP IT Cell Part-2,’ circulated by YouTuber Dhruv Rathee in 2018. The complainant, Vikas Sankrityan, alleges that defamatory statements were made against him in the said video. Kejriwal, challenging a Delhi High Court order that upheld the summons in the criminal defamation case, admitted in the Supreme Court that he “made a mistake by retweeting.”
What Mistake Did Kejriwal Make:
Kejriwal, in acknowledging his error, expressed regret over sharing the allegedly defamatory video on his social media platform. The content of the video, related to the BJP IT Cell, triggered a legal dispute, with Vikas Sankrityan asserting that false and defamatory allegations were propagated against him.
Why Did He Say So:
Senior advocate Abhishek Singhvi, representing Kejriwal in the Supreme Court, conveyed, “I can say this much that I made a mistake by retweeting.” The admission appears to be a strategic move, possibly aimed at mitigating the legal repercussions and resolving the matter amicably.
Supreme Court Respond:
The bench of justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta took note of Kejriwal’s admission and asked the complainant, Vikas Sankrityan, whether he intended to close the case in light of the chief minister’s apology. The Supreme Court directed the trial court to temporarily halt proceedings in the defamation case and deferred any further action until March 11.
What Will Happen Next:
The Supreme Court’s intervention and Kejriwal’s acknowledgment of his mistake open the door for potential resolution outside prolonged legal proceedings.
The court has instructed the trial court to refrain from taking up the case until March 11, allowing for a window of dialogue or negotiations between the parties involved. The eventual course of action will depend on whether the complainant accepts Kejriwal’s apology or opts to pursue the defamation case further.
Conclusion:
In summary, Arvind Kejriwal’s admission of making a mistake in retweeting the controversial video marks a unique development in a defamation case that has implications for public figures navigating social media platforms.
The Supreme Court’s decision to temporarily stay the proceedings introduces a crucial pause, providing an opportunity for the involved parties to consider a conciliatory resolution. The unfolding events will shed light on the trajectory of the case and its potential impact on the legal interpretation of social media actions by public figures.