Rajasthan HC Stays Defamation Case Proceedings Against Drishti IAS' Vikas Divyakirti Over Remarks On Judiciary

Rajasthan High Court today STAYED further proceedings in defamation complaint pending in Ajmer Court against Drishti IAS founder Vikas Divyakirti over his alleged derogatory remarks on Judiciary.

A bench of Justice Sameer Jain passed this order while hearing Dr. Divyakirti's plea against an Ajmer Court's order taking partial cognizance of a complaint against him accusing him of defaming the Judiciary.

It may be noted that earlier this month the Ajmer court had noted that here was strong "prima facie" evidence against him to show that he, with a malicious intent to gain petty publicity used "derogatory and sarcastic language against the judiciary".

The video in question is “IAS vs Judge: कौन ज्यादा ताकतवर है | (“Who is more powerful?”) best Guidance by Vikas Divyakirti sir Hindi Motivation". The complaint was filed under BNS Sections 353(2) (public mischief), 356(2),(3) (defamation) 2023 and Section 66A(b) IT Act. 

Directing the registration of the matter in the criminal register, the court asked Divyakriti to appear on the next date of hearing.

After considering the contentions, the impugned video and the judgments Additional Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate No. 02 Ajmer Manmohan Chandel in his July 8 order said:

"We have respectfully observed all the judicial precedents mentioned above and obtained guidance from them, from which the well-established legal position emerges that at the stage of cognizance, the court is not required to evaluate the material present on record piece by piece, but only these facts have to be considered whether on the basis of the material present on record and the quality of evidence, prima facie facts and grounds are available for taking further action against the accused or not. At this stage, it is never to be seen whether the accused will be convicted on the basis of the material present on record or not. In the case pending before us also, there is prima facie strong evidence on record to the effect that the accused Vikas Divyakirti, with malicious intent to gain petty publicity, used derogatory, derogatory and sarcastic language against the judiciary which includes not only the judges but also the advocates as court officers, and with the malicious intent to sensationalise the video, used such words and sentences in the entire video".

The court further said that the "judiciary has been ridiculed, due to which the dignity, impartiality and reputation of every person associated with the judiciary has been damaged, and the image and credibility of the judiciary has been tarnished".

It said that the "possibility of confusion, distrust and doubt towards the judiciary" arising among the general public cannot be ruled out.

Dr.  Divyakirti was represented by Senior Counsel VR Bajwa and Advocates Sumeer Sodhi and  Punit Singhvi.

Background

The complainant allegedly felt “insulted and humiliated” by the video which was circulated publicly.

It was asserted by the complainant that the remarks contained in the video were comparing IAS officers and judges in a derogatory manner, disparaging the judiciary and judicial officers.

The complainant submitted that the video was hurtful towards the sentiments of the legal professionals and also the public's faith in the judiciary.

On the contrary, it was the case of the Divyakriti that he had no connection with the YouTube channel on which the video was uploaded and that the video was edited and published by a third party without consent.

"I categorically submit that I have no connection, control, or involvement with the YouTube channel which has uploaded the alleged offending video.The said video was neither published nor authorized by Drishti IAS or any person acting on my behalf. It appears to have been extracted and uploaded by an unaffiliated third party without my knowledge or consent," he said in his response to show cause notice. He further said that complainant lacks locus standi as an "aggrieved person" under S.356 BNS, and the Complaint is therefore liable to be dismissed at the very outset since the Complainant has not been personally referred to or identified in the subject matter content, nor has any specific class or community to which he demonstrably belongs to, been targeted."

Furthermore, in relation to the content of the video, while underscoring the right of freedom of speech and expression, Divyakriti submitted that no specific individual or identifiable groups were targeted in the video which was a general commentary on public administration.