Defamation suit: Arvind Kejriwal opposes Arun Jaitley's electronic evidence

Arvind Kejriwal
AAP leaders Tuesday opposed in Delhi High Court, electronic evidence filed by Arun Jaitley in a civil defamation suit against Arvind Kejriwal and five others.

The AAP leaders objected to the admissibility of printouts of evidence which Jaitley has filed before Joint Registrar Kovai Venugopal, saying the minister has neither furnished certificate of section 65B (Admissibility of electronic records) of the Indian Evidence Act nor has filed an affidavit supporting his evidence and so the documents cannot be admitted as evidence during the proceedings.

Senior advocate Pratibha M Singh, appearing for Jaitley, opposed the contentions of Kejriwal, Raghav Chadha, Kumar Vishwas, Ashutosh, Sanjay Singh and Deepak Bajpai, saying the minister has furnished an affidavit so the court may go ahead with the proceedings.

She further argued that its delaying tactics on the part of defendants (AAP leaders).

The senior counsel said the matter was fixed for admission/denial of the documents filed by both the parties in order to support their allegations and defence.

She said "both the parties are putting their documents for admission/denial and in case anyone has an objection, it can raise before the court during the admission/ denial of documents".

During the hearing, the counsel representing AAP leaders contended that Jaitley's affidavit was incomplete and the court cannot proceed without deciding this issue.

To this, the Joint Registrar fixed the issue for March 29 when it will hear arguments of both the parties.

Jaitley has filed the defamation suit seeking Rs 10 crore in damages from Kejriwal and the other five leaders for issuing allegedly false and defamatory statements against him and his family in connection with alleged irregularities in the Delhi and District Cricket Association (DDCA) when he was its President.

The minister has already denied all the allegations.

Kejriwal and the others have claimed that the suit was "a classic instance of political vendetta" with a view to "harassing" them and curbing their right to free speech.

Dear Reader,

Business Standard has always strived hard to provide up-to-date information and commentary on developments that are of interest to you and have wider political and economic implications for the country and the world. Your encouragement and constant feedback on how to improve our offering have only made our resolve and commitment to these ideals stronger. Even during these difficult times arising out of Covid-19, we continue to remain committed to keeping you informed and updated with credible news, authoritative views and incisive commentary on topical issues of relevance.

We, however, have a request.

As we battle the economic impact of the pandemic, we need your support even more, so that we can continue to offer you more quality content. Our subscription model has seen an encouraging response from many of you, who have subscribed to our online content. More subscription to our online content can only help us achieve the goals of offering you even better and more relevant content. We believe in free, fair and credible journalism. Your support through more subscriptions can help us practise the journalism to which we are committed.

Support quality journalism and subscribe to Business Standard.

Digital Editor

Business Standard is now on Telegram.
For insightful reports and views on business, markets, politics and other issues, subscribe to our official Telegram channel