Defamation Complain By Mahua Moitra - Delhi Court Dismisses Sudhir Chaudhary's Plea Against Summons By The Trial Court

What Is The Case

• A Delhi court has dismissed a revision appeal submitted by Sudhir Chaudhary, the Editor-in-Chief of Zee TV, contesting the trial court's summoning decision in a defamation case brought by Trinamool Congress Party MP Mahua Moitra.
• Additional Sessions Judge Anil Antil held that the summons order was not unconstitutional or perverse and that the revisional court did not need to intervene.

Details Of The Case

• The disagreement started after Chaudhary claimed in a Zee News broadcast on July 2, 2019, that Moitra's statement in Parliament was plagiarised from an essay written by Martin Longman and published on the American website Washington Monthly.
• Moitra claimed that her speech detailed and extended on how the seven hallmarks of fascism apply to the current scenario in India.
• Despite Moitra's explicit clarification that the image was obtained from a poster at the Holocaust Memorial Museum in the United States of America, the programme was shown.
• It was claimed that Chaudhary played modified chunks of Moitra's remarks omitting the parts where Moitra cited the source. Chaudhary's show was also shared on YouTube, Twitter, and Facebook.
• Moitra claimed that Chaudhary's remarks in the show were all meant to severely and irreparably harm the complainant's (Moitra) credibility, character, and integrity in the eyes of her family, friends, relatives, Indian citizens, as well as her supporters and well-wishers around the world.

Court’s Order

• The Sessions Judge ruled that the trial court had discussed the inquiry requirements and valued the evidence in accordance with the law.
• According to the Sessions Judge, there is no specific technique of inquiry and only witnesses must be interrogated under Section 202 of the CrPC for this reason. That mandate was carried out by the trial court, and the order it issued was not found to be illegal.
• “Records show that the learned MM clearly specifies in an order dated 16.08.2019 that “arguments heard on the aspect of inquiry u/s 202 CrPC and on the question of summoning,” the Court noted.
• As a result, the Court concluded that the petitioner's contention that the ruling is cryptic and requires the application of judicial thought cannot be supported.
• The Court went on to say that the MM should deal with issues of relevance, admissibility, and evidentiary value during the course of the trial.
• As a result, Chaudhary's plea was dismissed.

What do you think of the case?