Gujarat HC Refuses Separate Trials in Modi Degree Defamation Case

The Gujarat High Court has dismissed appeals filed by AAP leaders Arvind Kejriwal and Sanjay Singh , challenging lower court orders that rejected their plea for separate trials in a criminal defamation case linked to remarks on the Modi degree controversy. The High Court’s refusal to interfere means the proceedings will continue as a joint trial, as already decided by the trial court and the sessions court.

The defamation complaint was filed by Gujarat University registrar Piyush Patel , who alleged that the two leaders made sarcastic and derogatory statements against the university. According to the complainant, the remarks were made during press conferences and amplified through social media , including Twitter , and were widely circulated in the media, allegedly damaging the institution’s image and public standing. The court issued summons after observing that a prima facie case existed against them under Section 500 IPC , which deals with criminal defamation.

The controversy dates back to April 2023 , when the Gujarat High Court set aside a directive related to the disclosure of PM Modi’s educational documents. Following that decision, Kejriwal and Singh allegedly made comments targeting Gujarat University, which the complainant claimed were deliberately intended to harm the university’s reputation. Gujarat University maintained that it enjoys long-standing credibility among the public and that the statements lowered its prestige.

Kejriwal and Singh sought separate proceedings arguing that accusations against them were distinct and that the incidents and dates differed. However, both the trial court and the sessions court rejected their applications. The sessions court observed that both leaders made their statements as members of the same party and appeared to be acting with continuity, forming part of a single chain of actions connected by a common objective. Accepting this reasoning, the High Court upheld the view that separate trials were not required in the matter.

The case also highlights the constitutional balance between free expression and legal limits. Article 19(1)(a) guarantees freedom of speech and expression, including the right to comment on public institutions. However, this freedom is not absolute. Article 19(2) permits reasonable restrictions on speech on specific grounds, including defamation. In this case, Gujarat University has invoked this limitation, alleging that political criticism crossed into defamatory conduct, warranting criminal action.

With the Gujarat High Court dismissing the appeals, the case will now proceed as a joint trial before the lower court. The ruling does not decide the final truth or falsity of the allegations, but it settles the procedural issue by confirming that both leaders will face proceedings together, as the courts found their actions connected in context and purpose.