Tweets not defamatory, Opposition has right to question govt: Delhi HC to AAP minister

In the process, the court said public figures such as ministers may be “lampooned” but they must bear it with fortitude and allow their actions to speak louder than words.

Delhi Transport Minister Kailash Gahlot had last year approached the court with a suit accusing Gupta of making scandalous allegations against him with regard to the alleged irregularities in purchase and maintenance of 1,000 low-floor buses.

Dismissing an application moved by Gahlot, Justice Asha Menon said it cannot be overlooked that both Gupta and Gahlot are public figures and members of the legislative assembly. The court also said Gupta cannot be restrained on the basis of a presumed threat of defamation.

“There is a right vested in the Opposition to question the government on its actions, as the Executive is subject to the Legis-lature under the Constitution. This is key to the maintenance of balance of power between the two wings of the State,” said the court.

The court further said that Gupta had raised questions in the assembly but did not find the answers “sufficiently elucidating of the actions” taken by the government. “To now prevent (Gupta) from commenting on, specifically, the purchase of the low-floor buses from M/s Tata Motors Limited & M/s JBM Auto Ltd and the CAMC given to JBM Auto Limited, would not only amount to a gag order, but would also tie the hands of (Gupta), preventing him from effectively discharging his public duties as an MLA by raising questions legitimately, on action taken or not taken by the government, particularly when it would be obligated, at least in the Assembly, to answer the very same questions,” said the court.

It added that such an order would also amount to restraining Gupta from raising issues of public importance, which would impact the public and about which the public has a right to know and be informed. It also said that elected representatives are expected to raise concerns of the public in appropriate fora and that today it is through social media platforms that information and opinions are transmitted.

“Only if blatant lies and falsehoods detrimental to public order and morality or adversely affecting the security of the country or national interests are being disseminated through these social media platforms, can there be a restraint imposed as being reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2) of the Constitution. Else, none should be prevented from expressing their opinions including suspicions or doubts on Government’s transaction of business,” said the court.

On Gupta’s tweets, the court said their tone and tenor would show that he was relentlessly pursuing the government in respect of the purchase of and grant of an Annual Maintenance Contract for 1,000 buses in which the committee appointed by the L-G had also found irregularities and recommended its cancellation. “Had these accusations been absolutely false, the Hon’ble Lieutenant Governor would not have constituted a committee,” it said.

It also said that CBI has initiated a preliminary inquiry and the government itself has kept the purchase and maintenance orders on hold without stating any reason. “Hence, it is reasonable to infer that the Committee report and the CBI inquiry may have had some effect on this decision of the Government. It would, no doubt, be upon the defendant No. 1 to actually prove justification during trial. But on the material placed on the record, there is nothing on which basis the tweets can be treated as blatant lies and hence defamatory,” it said.

Even if these tweets were suggestive of corruption, the court said, in the backdrop of the findings of the Committee and initiation of the CBI inquiry, even on a prima facie reading, these cannot be held to be defamatory.