Fri, 26 April , 2024 Home About Us Advertisement Contact Us
Breaking News

Prashant Bhushan Seeks Quashing of Defamation Case Against Him

New Delhi: Activist lawyer Prashant Bhushan on Thursday sought quashing of a defamation complaint filed against him, Arvind Kejriwal and others by former Union Minister Kapil Sibal’s lawyer son Amit Sibal in Delhi High Court.

Senior advocate Shanti Bhushan, appearing for his lawyer son Prashant, submitted before the high court that there is no allegation which had cast “aspersion” on Amit Sibal or harmed his “reputation”.

The counsel also told Justice I S Mehta, if it was said that Amit is the son of a minister, it does not lower his moral character.

Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal had held a press conference on May 15, 2013, alleging conflict of interest on part of Sibal, saying he had appeared in the court for a telecom firm when his father was the Union Communications Minister.

Following the accusation, Amit Sibal had filed the defamation complaint. The trial court had then issued summons to them on July 24, 2013.

Referring to the press conference in which Kejriwal, Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia and Prashant was present, Bhushan also submitted “even the worst criminal has right to be represented through counsel of their choice”.

“It was a compliment that he (Amit) he was representing the company. It was compliment that his father was a telecom minister,” Bhushan, who is also former Law Minister, said.

He submitted that whatever was said there, was against Kapil Sibal and not against his son Amit.

The arguments which remained inconclusive will resume on March 20.

The apex court on November 17 last year had remanded back the matter to the high court to decide the plea of Kejriwal and others seeking discharge in the case. It had made it clear that the trial court proceedings in the defamation complaint would continue.

The high court had in its order on January 16, 2014 asked the trial court to consider the pleas of Kejriwal and others seeking discharge from the defamation case. It had also refused to quash the defamation proceedings against them.

Comments

comments