Supreme Court Dismisses Manish Sisodia's Plea Against Hemanta Biswa Sarma
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/77ba7/77ba71ddad932f7a110321a3f84f72a8dd7d46a6" alt="Supreme Court Dismisses Manish Sisodias Plea Against Hemanta Biswa Sarma Supreme Court Dismisses Manish Sisodias Plea Against Hemanta Biswa Sarma"
The Supreme Court dimissed Delhi Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia's plea against the defamation case that was filed by the Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma.
While listening to the the plea, Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul told to Manish Sisodia's lawyer Abhishek Singhvi that, "If you reduce public debate up to this level, you have to face the consequences. You should have tendered an unconditional apology earlier."
Earlier I=in August this year a court in Guwahati had summoned Sisodia to appear on September 29 after Himanta Biswa Sarma filed a criminal defamation case against him over allegations Sisodia made during a press conference that linked Sarma's wife Riniki Bhuyan Sarma in a corruption case regarding the supply of personal protection equipment in 2020 when there was a shortage of PPE kits in the state.
The video of the press conference was uploaded to the social media handle of the Aam Aadmi Party, with a caption that– "Assam ke BJP CM ke bhrastachar ka yeh hai kacha chittha". In 2020, Hemanta Biswa Sarma was the health and family welfare minister in the first BJP-led state government.
Sisodia's lawyer claimed that his client had never said that Sarma's wife received the money. He said "You made a virtue out of necessity by
Following the apex court's reaction Manish Sisodia withdrew his plea.
Manish Sisodia had approached the Gauhati High Court seeking to revoke the proceedings of case, which remains pending before the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup (M) at Guwahati.
"Therefore, notwithstanding that the petitioner has not been able to demonstrate that the contents of his press conference was a replica of the contents of "The Wire" and "The Cross Current", but it is apparent that the petitioner did not take care to cross-check facts before making remarks against the respondent no. 2 and his wife", the High Court held.