New Delhi: The Delhi High Court on Wednesday adjourned hearing for October 4 a plea filed by former Rajya Sabha member and BJP leader Subramanian Swamy challenging the proceedings pending in a trial court in a criminal defamation case filed against him by the party’s spokesperson Tajinder Pal Singh Bagga.
On Wednesday, his plea came up before the bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma, who was informed that former Congress leader and senior advocate Kapil Sibal will represent Swamy in his case against Bagga.
Appearing for Swamy, Advocate Satya Sabharwal told the court that Sibal would appear for him, and sought adjournment, saying that the latter was busy before the Supreme Court’s Constitution Bench in the Article 370 case.
After recording the statement, the judge adjourned the matter to October 4.
In his complaint, Bagga has alleged that Swamy falsely claimed in a tweet in September 2021 that Bagga had been jailed multiple times for petty crimes before joining the BJP.
Swamy had approached the high court to challenge the summons issued by an Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (ACMM) in the defamation case and asked for the quashing of the proceedings.
Justice Sharma was of the view that Swamy should have initially approached the revisionist court, which is a sessions court, instead of directly moving to the superior court.
He asked for arguments on the maintainability of the petition to be advanced first.
In the absence of Bagga’s representative, Swamy’s counsel had submitted that the court should dispose of the petition since Bagga chose not to appear in the case.
The high court had then listed the case for hearing on Wednesday, and had said that Bagga should be served a court notice through the SHO of the relevant police station.
On March 22 last year, the ACMM summoned Swamy as an accused in the case, stating that there were sufficient grounds to proceed against him.
Later on April 4, 2022, the high court stayed the proceedings in the trial court and issued a notice to Bagga based on Swamy’s plea.
Earlier, Swamy’s counsel had argued that the trial court’s order was based on a misconception as his tweet was misinterpreted. It was contended that there was publicly available evidence supporting the substantial allegations in his tweet regarding Bagga’s imprisonment.
In his testimony before the trial court, Bagga had refuted the allegations, stating that they were false and intended to harm his reputation.
