The Supreme Court on Tuesday disposed of a criminal and civil defamation case filed by Congress MP Vivek Tankha against Union Agriculture Minister Shivraj Singh Chouhan, after being informed that the parties had amicably settled the dispute and that Tankha would withdraw all proceedings.
A Bench comprising Justices M.M. Sundresh and N.K. Singh was informed by senior advocate Mahesh Jethmalani, appearing for Chouhan, that both leaders had met in Parliament, following which Tankha decided to withdraw the criminal complaint as well as the civil defamation suit. Tankha was represented by senior advocate Kapil Sibal and advocate Sumeer Sodhi.
Recording the statement that both the criminal and civil defamation cases would be withdrawn, the Bench disposed of the matter and appreciated the assistance rendered by counsel on both sides. The Court also observed that in matters involving statements made by politicians, courts are required to tread very carefully.
Tankha had filed a complaint alleging that defamatory statements were made against him during the run-up to the 2021 panchayat elections in Madhya Pradesh. He claimed that after a December 17, 2021 order of the Supreme Court relating to local body elections, BJP leaders had falsely alleged that he opposed reservation for the Other Backward Classes (OBCs) in panchayat polls, thereby damaging his reputation.
In his complaint, Tankha sought ₹10 crore in compensation and initiation of criminal defamation proceedings against Chouhan, BJP state president V.D. Sharma, and former minister Bhupendra Singh. He alleged that the three BJP leaders had carried out a “coordinated, malicious, false and defamatory” campaign against him for political mileage.
The matter reached the Supreme Court in 2024 after the Madhya Pradesh High Court declined to quash the defamation proceedings and upheld the trial court’s decision, which had also issued bailable warrants against the BJP leaders. On November 11, 2024, the apex court stayed the execution of those warrants and sought Tankha’s response.
Earlier, the Madhya Pradesh High Court, by an order dated October 25, 2024, had refused to quash the defamation case lodged by Tankha. Prior to that, on January 20, 2024, a special court in Jabalpur had taken cognisance of the complaint under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code and summoned the three BJP leaders.
Before the Supreme Court, Jethmalani had contended that the alleged statements were made on the floor of the House and were protected under Article 194(2) of the Constitution, which grants immunity to members of state legislatures for anything said or any vote given in the legislature.
The BJP leaders had also argued before the High Court that the newspaper clippings relied upon by Tankha could not form the basis of a defamation complaint and that the material on record did not disclose any defamatory insinuation. They further contended that since all accused were public office holders at the relevant time, the trial court erred in taking cognisance of the complaint without prior sanction from the competent authority.
With the settlement now placed on record, the Supreme Court brought the long-pending dispute to a close.
