{"id":31437,"date":"2017-07-28T12:32:04","date_gmt":"2017-07-28T07:02:04","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.indialegallive.com\/?p=31437"},"modified":"2017-10-16T14:12:27","modified_gmt":"2017-10-16T08:42:27","slug":"kejriwal-sticky-wicket-vs-jaitley-defamation-cases","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.indialegallive.com\/top-news-of-the-day\/news\/kejriwal-sticky-wicket-vs-jaitley-defamation-cases\/","title":{"rendered":"Kejriwal on sticky wicket vs Jaitley in defamation cases"},"content":{"rendered":"

The Delhi High Court\u2019s single bench of Justice Manmohan\u00a0on Wednesday\u00a0(July 26) took strong exception to the language used by Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal<\/a>\u2019s famous counsel Ram Jethmalani <\/a>in court in the defamation suit filed by finance and defence minister Arun Jaitley.<\/a> Terming the words \u201cindecent, scandalous and abusive\u201d the judge warned Kejriwal through his new counsel Anoop George Chaudhari that even a single repetition of such \u201cunparliamentary\u201d words would\u00a0 land him in further trouble and the case would be\u00a0 sent back to the registrar\u2019s court.<\/p>\n

The parties had petitioned the court to move the case to the court of a judge for expediting the case.<\/p>\n

Kejriwal\u2019s new counsel Chaudhari has asked for time to go through the proceedings and will now cross-examine Jaitley on\u00a0August 28.<\/p>\n

Meanwhile Jethmalani, who had quit Kejriwal\u2019s brief in a huff, has sent a demand of Rs 2 crore to the chief minister as fees.<\/p>\n

There were problems for the chief minister in the original defamation<\/a> suit. Kejriwal was asked to file an affidavit, but his counsel asked for more time and the court was not willing. The joint registrar Pankaj Gupta, imposed a cost of Rs 10,000.<\/p>\n

Jaitley has filed for Rs 10 crore damages in each of the cases.\u00a0 It was from the use of the \u201ccrook\u201d by Jethmalani that the second case emanated.<\/p>\n

During the cross examination senior counsel Jethmalani used the word \u201ccrook\u201d against the Jaitley. When Jaitley asked Jethmalani whether this word was used by him as per instruction from his client, Jethmalani had insisted that he was speaking with consent from his client (Kejriwal). Kejriwal had later, on oath, denied that he had instructed Jethmalani to use such words against Jaitley.<\/p>\n

On Wednesday, the judge said: \u201cThis is a matter of grave injustice.\u201d He referred to the Indian Evidence Act Section 151. That section deals with \u2018Indecent and scandalous questions\u2019. It says: \u201cThe Court may forbid any questions or inquiries which it regards as indecent or scandalous, although such questions or inquiries may have some bearing on the questions before the court, unless they relate to facts in issue, or to matters necessary to be known in order to determine whether or not the facts in issue existed.\u201d<\/p>\n

Kejriwal\u2019s new counsel Chaudhary said that this will not happen again. \u201cIf it happens again, take action,\u201d he said. \u201cWe don\u2019t want to be involved with the issue.\u201d<\/p>\n

The plaintiff said, \u201cthe damage is done on the internet worldwide. \u201cEven in civil defamation there is something called privilege of court. There has to be reasonable ground for asking unreasonable questions.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u2014India Legal Bureau<\/strong>\u200b<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The Delhi High Court\u2019s single bench of Justice Manmohan\u00a0on Wednesday\u00a0(July 26) took strong exception to the language used by Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal\u2019s famous counsel Ram Jethmalani in court in the defamation suit filed by finance and defence minister Arun Jaitley. Terming the words \u201cindecent, scandalous and abusive\u201d the judge warned Kejriwal through his […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":30637,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":false,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","enabled":false}}},"categories":[3],"tags":[530,515,4988,1377,1899],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/d2r2ijn7njrktv.cloudfront.net\/IL\/uploads\/2017\/07\/Kejriwal_UNI-3.jpg","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.indialegallive.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/31437"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.indialegallive.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.indialegallive.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.indialegallive.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.indialegallive.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=31437"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.indialegallive.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/31437\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.indialegallive.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/30637"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.indialegallive.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=31437"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.indialegallive.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=31437"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.indialegallive.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=31437"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}