New Delhi, Apr 23 (PTI) The Supreme Court on Wednesday asked Union Agriculture Minister Shivraj Singh Chouhan and Rajya Sabha MP Vivek Tankha to amicably settle the defamation case lodged by the Congress lawmaker against the senior BJP leader.

Congress leader Tankha has alleged that Chouhan, BJP state president V D Sharma and former minister Bhupendra Singh carried out a “coordinated, malicious, false and defamatory” campaign against him for political mileage by accusing him of opposing OBC reservation in the 2021 panchayat elections in Madhya Pradesh.

“Please do not make us hear this case. Let us close it. Both of you sit together and settle this,” a bench comprising Justices M M Sundresh and Rajesh Bindal told senior advocates Mahesh Jethmalani and Kapil Sibal, appearing for Chouhan and Tankha respectively.

The top court was hearing Chouhan’s appeal against the Madhya Pradesh High Court order last year refusing to quash the defamation case.

On Wednesday, the bench advised both senior advocates to settle the case. “If he (Chouhan) expresses regret, I am willing to settle the defamation case,” Sibal said.

Why should the minister regret if there is no wrong, Jethmalani replied, adding that he personally has no problem in sitting with Sibal to discuss the case.

The bench, which was conducting the proceedings through video conferencing, deferred the hearing to May 21.

The bench recorded Sibal’s statement that Tankha will not oppose Chouhan’s plea in the trial court seeking exemption from personal appearance there on the next date of hearing.

It had earlier extended its order exempting Chouhan from personal appearance before the trial court in connection with a criminal defamation case lodged against him by Tankha.

Before this, the top court stayed the execution of bailable warrants against the three BJP leaders in the defamation case. It sought Tankha’s response on the appeal of Chouhan and other BJP leaders.

Jethmalani had said the purported statements mentioned in Tankha’s complaint were made on the floor of the House and were covered by Article 194(2) of the Constitution.

Article 194 (2) states, “No member of the Legislature of a State shall be liable to any proceedings in any court in respect of anything said or any vote given by him in the Legislature or any committee thereof, and no person shall be so liable in respect of the publication by or under the authority of a House of such a Legislature of any report, paper, votes or proceedings.” It was unheard, Jethmalani submitted, that a bailable warrant was issued by the court in a summons case when the parties could appear through their counsel.

He, therefore, sought a stay on the execution of a bailable warrant. Sibal had said they should have appeared before the trial court in the case, asking what the trial court would do if they did not appear before it.

Jethmalani said the two statements alleged to be defamatory by complainant Tankha were of December 22 and 25, respectively in 2021 in a matter related to an apex court order staying the panchayat elections in the state.

On October 25, last year, the high court refused to quash the defamation case lodged by Tankha against the BJP leaders.

Tankha, in his complaint in the trial court, had said defamatory statements were made in the run-up to panchayat elections in the state in 2021.

He alleged that following the December 17, 2021 order of the apex court it was alleged by the BJP leaders that he had opposed the reservation for OBC community in the local body polls which caused damage to his reputation.

Tankha’s plea sought Rs 10 crore compensation and initiation of criminal defamation proceedings against the BJP leaders.

On January 20, 2024, a special court in Jabalpur agreed to examine the defamation case against the three BJP leaders under Section 500 (punishment for defamation) of the IPC and summoned them. PTI SJK SJK MIN MIN