[ad_1]
The Delhi High Court Wednesday asked the counsel representing Delhi Transport Minister Kailash Gahlot and BJP MLA Vijender Gupta to explore the possibility of arriving at a settlement over the alleged defamatory statements made by the MLA against the minister in relation to “irregularities” in the process for purchase and maintenance of buses by Delhi Transport Corporation (DTC).
Gahlot last year approached the court with a suit accusing Gupta of making scandalous allegations against him with regard to the tender process for the purchase and maintenance of 1,000 low-floor buses by the DTC.
Declining the prayer seeking to restrain Gupta from posting anything defamatory on social media, Justice Asha Menon on March 7 said that no one should be prevented from expressing their opinions including suspicions or doubts about the government’s transaction of business. Gahlot challenged the decision.
During the hearing of the appeal, the division bench of Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju Wednesday listed the matter for hearing in December after the counsel representing Gahlot and Gupta agreed to sit and explore the possibility of settling the matter. The court also asked them to file written submissions within four weeks.
Justice Shakdher also observed that defamation cases involving political leaders are “only posturing” and history reveals that they end up in settlement.
Dismissing an application moved by Gahlot, Justice Menon in March said it cannot be overlooked that both Gupta and Gahlot are public figures and members of the Legislative Assembly. The court had also said that Gupta cannot be restrained based on 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 legislature under the Constitution. This is key to the maintenance of the balance of power between the two wings of the state,” the court had said.
The court had 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,” the court had said.
[ad_2]
Source link