PM Modi Degree Defamation Case: Gujarat High Court Reserves Verdict On Arvind Kejriwal's Plea Seeking Separate Trial From Sanjay Singh

The Gujarat High Court on Monday (December 22) reserved verdict on a petition moved by AAP Chief and former Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal seeking separate trial from AAP leader Sanjay Singh in a criminal defamation case filed by Gujarat University over alleged remarks on Prime Minister Narendra Modi's education Degree.

Justice MR Mengdey reserved the verdict after hearing all the parties. 

Kejriwal has challenged a December 15 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.

Before the high court the petitioner's counsel argued that in the present case the subject matter is the same, or trigger point was common. "But that is not the same as the same transaction and would not qualify under Section 223 CrPC" he added. Referring to judgments he said that joint trial maybe held but that was a judicial discretion. 

He further submitted dates are different, videos are different and the twitter account of both persons are also different. He further said that if some incriminating material may come up against one accused then it may cause prejudice to the other accused as both are facing a joint trial. 

Meanwhile the senior counsel for the University submitted that proximity of time and place, continuity in action if that is same then it can be considered as one transaction. He said continuity of offence was there.

"Videos were uploaded in quick succession. I can understand if there was some time gap...the defamation was continued. Therefore it is the same transaction. Purport is the same, allegation is same, evidence is same and witness is same and core issue regarding degree is same. Therefore it is one transaction," he said

Section 223 CrPC refers to what persons may be charged jointly and includes those instances where persons accused of the same offence committed in the course of the same transaction. 

For context, Kejriwal had preferred an application before the magistrate court  for separation of trial of the applicant from the trial of the accused No.2–AAP leader Sanjay Singh as it would not be in the interest of justice to club the two incidents and try the same together in one complaint. 

Before the sessions court Kejriwal had argued that both the accused cannot be tried together. It was argued that the rejection of the application by magistrate court was illegal as the transactions and accusation against both the accused are distinct and separate.

It was argued that even dates of incident are different and the videos in question uploaded by the accused are also different. It was submitted that the twitter handles of both the accused are also different. Therefore, the evidence led against one applicant cannot be read over against the another applicant and hence it is not necessary to joint trial.

The Sessions Court had observed that Kejriwal and Singh had conducted a Press Conference on first April 2023 and second April 2023 respectively wherein, they had used defamatory language which directly tarnished the image and reputation of Gujarat University and the same was uploaded on the Twitter handles.

The sessions court referred to Section 223CrPC and said, "The two terms accused of the same offences and in the course of the same transaction are very much appropriate and particular. The primary condition for the application of clause (a) is that persons should have been accused either of the same offence or of different offences committed in the course of the same transaction. The words “the same offence” indicate the same act of crime. The test is whether the two persons are engaged in one transaction, and to determine that it is necessary to regard the facts from the point of view of those two persons. If they are animated by a common purpose, and there is a continuity in their action, then surely there is one transaction so far as they are concerned".

"Here in facts of the present case, the applicant and accused No.2 being the Office Bearer and Members of the same political party and acted upon by making statement on 1/04/2023 and 02/04/2023 respectively, in reply to the and after the pronouncement of the order of the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat on 31st March, 2023. Therefore, it seems that they were engaged in one transaction and that is animated by a common purpose and there is a continuity in their action. They have used defamatory language and also uploaded video in the course of carrying through the affair in question and therefore, prima facie the provision of sub-section (a) of Section 223 of the Cr.P.C. is applicable to the facts of the present case of the applicant. Therefore, the submissions made on behalf of advocate for the applicant that the provisions of Section: 223 of the Cr.P.C. are not attracted to the present case is not tenable and hence, rejected," the court added. 

Background

The comments were allegedly made by Kejriwal at a press conference on April 1, 2023, and Singh allegedly made the comments at a second press conference conducted on April 2, 2023. Thereafter, the Gujarat University filed a criminal defamation complaint against them before a magistrate court in Ahmedabad, based on which summons were issued to them by the magistrate court. 

In February last year, the high court had dismissed pleas by Kejriwal and Singh challenging a Sessions Court order affirming summons issued against them by a Magistrate Court in the defamation case filed by Gujarat University.

The complaint states that the alleged statement was made right after the Gujarat High Court's order of quashing and setting aside the 2016 order of the Central Information Commission (CIC) directing the Gujarat University to provide “information regarding degrees in the name of Mr Narendra Damodar Modi" to Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal.

Case title: ARVIND KEJRIWAL v/s  STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR. 

R/SCR.A/17143/2025