PM Modi Degree Row: Press Conference By Arvind Kejriwal, Sanjay Singh Was Part Of 'Political Strategy', Gujarat High Court Observes
Rejecting former Delhi CM Arvind Kejriwal's plea seeking separate trial from AAP leader Sanjay Singh in a defamation case over alleged remarks on Prime Minister Narendra Modi's education Degree, the Gujarat High Court held that both the leaders had decided to hold a press conference over the issue as part of "political strategy". The court thus said that it appeared that the incident...
Rejecting former Delhi CM Arvind Kejriwal's plea seeking separate trial from AAP leader Sanjay Singh in a defamation case over alleged remarks on Prime Minister Narendra Modi's education Degree, the Gujarat High Court held that both the leaders had decided to hold a press conference over the issue as part of "political strategy".
The court thus said that it appeared that the incident alleged against Kejriwal and Singh "were forming part of the same transaction".
The defamation case was lodged by Gujarat University against the two AAP leaders right after the High Court's order quashing and setting aside a 2016 Central Information Commission (CIC) order directing the University to provide “information regarding degrees in the name of Mr Narendra Damodar Modi" to Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal.
Before the high court, Kejriwal had challenged a December 15, 2025 order passed by the Additional Principal Judge Manish Pradyuman Purohit, City Sessions Court Ahmedabad, which had dismissed his revision application to quash a September 23, 2023 order of the magistrate court rejecting his application seeking separation of trial of accused persons.
Justice MR Mengdey in his order said:
"The petitioner as well as the co-accused Sanjay Singh being at the helm of a political party i.e. Aam Aadmi Party, had decided to address the Press Conference after the order of this Court, raising doubt about the degree of the Honourable the Prime Minister and the intent on the part of the University in not providing information in that regard. Even though, the provisions of Section 120(B) and Section 34 of the IPC are not invoked against the petitioner as well as co-accused in the complaint, it appears that the petitioner and coaccused had decided to address the Press Conference as a part of their political strategy and after holding those Press Conferences, videos of respective the Press Conferences were also uploaded by them. Therefore, it appears that the incident alleged against the petitioner as well as other coaccused were forming part of the same transaction".
The court said that in respect of the allegations levelled against the petitioner as well as other co-accused, it appeared that the evidence "which would be adduced against them during the course of trial would be the same".
"Therefore, there is no reason for conducting separate trial against the petitioner as well as the other co-accused," the court added.
Kejriwal had contended that the evidence adduced against Singh may cause prejudice to his (Kejriwal's) defence. The high court however said that the evidence which would be adduced against the petitioner and other co-accused would be the same.
It noted that the Gujarat University's counsel had stated at the bar that the evidence to be adduced against both the accused including the petitioner would be the same.
"Therefore, it is not likely that the separate set of evidence would be submitted against the other co-accused. So far as the aspect of prejudice being caused to the petitioner is concerned, except bare assertion in that regard, there is nothing on record to indicate as to what prejudice would be caused to the petitioner. It is merely an apprehension being voiced by the petitioner of prejudice only with a view to getting the trial separated," the court said.
The court noted that the plea of the petitioner and co-accused was recorded before the trial Court on 11.08.2023 and thereafter, the application for separate trial was submitted before the Court on 23.09.2023.
The high court said that the trial Court as well as Sessions Court while dismissing respective applications filed by the petitioner have rightly held that the acts alleged against the petitioner as well the other co-accused are arising out of the same transaction.
The court this dismissed the plea.
Case title: ARVIND KEJRIWAL v/s STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
R/SCR A (QUASHING) NO. 17143 of 2025