High Court Rejects Arvind Kejriwal's Plea for Separate Trial in PM Modi's Degree Defamation Case

Introduction

In a significant ruling on criminal procedure, the Gujarat High Court has dismissed a petition by former Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal seeking a separate trial from Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader Sanjay Singh in a defamation case filed over alleged remarks questioning Prime Minister Narendra Modi's educational degree. Justice M. R. Mengdey, in his judgment dated January 13, 2026, observed that the two leaders' back-to-back press conferences in April 2023 were part of a coordinated "political strategy" and constituted acts arising from the same transaction, warranting a joint trial under Section 223 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1973. The case, registered under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for defamation, stems from complaints by Gujarat University against Kejriwal and Singh following a court order quashing a Central Information Commission (CIC) directive to disclose details of Modi's degree. This decision underscores the court's emphasis on judicial efficiency in cases involving related accused, potentially setting a precedent for handling politically charged defamation proceedings where multiple parties engage in similar public statements.

The bench, comprising single judge Justice Mengdey, rejected arguments of potential prejudice to Kejriwal's defense, noting the commonality of evidence against both accused. This ruling comes amid ongoing political scrutiny of the "PM Modi degree row," as highlighted in contemporary news reports, and reinforces that inherent powers under Article 226 of the Constitution and Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) should not be invoked to aid non-cooperative parties in trial proceedings.

Case Background

The origins of this defamation case trace back to a long-standing controversy surrounding Prime Minister Narendra Modi's educational qualifications, particularly his alleged Master's degree from Gujarat University. In April 2016, the Central Information Commission (CIC) directed Gujarat University to provide details of the degree awarded to Modi under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005. The university challenged this order before the Gujarat High Court in Special Civil Application No. 9476 of 2016, arguing that such disclosure infringed on privacy and institutional autonomy.

On March 31, 2023, a coordinate bench of the Gujarat High Court allowed the university's petition, quashing the CIC's order and protecting the confidentiality of the degree details. This judicial intervention sparked immediate political backlash. The very next day, on April 1, 2023, Arvind Kejriwal, then Delhi Chief Minister and AAP convener, held a press conference where he questioned the authenticity and transparency of Modi's degree, alleging a cover-up by the university and the government. Kejriwal uploaded a video of the conference on his Twitter (now X) handle, amplifying the statements to a wide audience.

On April 2, 2023, Sanjay Singh, a Rajya Sabha MP and AAP leader, followed suit with his own press conference, echoing similar doubts about the degree and criticizing the university's role. He too shared the video on his social media account. These sequential public addresses were perceived by Gujarat University as defamatory, tarnishing its reputation and implying mala fide intent in withholding information.

Aggrieved, the university, represented as Respondent No. 2, lodged a complaint under Section 500 IPC against both Kejriwal and Singh before the 2nd Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Ahmedabad (Gheekanta). This led to the registration of Criminal Case No. 29303 of 2023. On August 11, 2023, pleas were recorded against both accused. However, on September 23, 2023, Kejriwal filed an application (Exh-37) seeking a separate trial from Singh, arguing that their acts were distinct and that a joint trial would prejudice his defense.

The trial court dismissed this application, holding that the acts arose from the same transaction. Kejriwal then approached the Sessions Court via Criminal Revision No. 147 of 2025, which was rejected on December 15, 2025. Undeterred, Kejriwal filed the present Special Criminal Application (Quashing) No. 17143 of 2025 under Article 226 of the Constitution and Section 528 BNSS, praying for the impugned orders to be set aside, records to be called for examination, and proceedings to be stayed pending disposal. The core legal questions before the High Court were: (1) Whether the press conferences constituted acts from the "same transaction" under Section 223 CrPC, justifying a joint trial? (2) Could Kejriwal demonstrate sufficient prejudice to warrant separation? (3) Was invocation of inherent powers appropriate given Kejriwal's alleged non-cooperation in trial proceedings?

Notably, Sections 34 (common intention) and 120B (criminal conspiracy) IPC were not invoked in the complaint, which Kejriwal highlighted to argue for distinct trials. The case timeline reflects a pattern of protracted litigation, with earlier petitions like Special Criminal Application No. 12429 of 2023 also touching on trial separation but not yielding relief.

Arguments Presented

Kejriwal's counsel, led by Mr. Bhavook Chauhan along with Mr. Mohd. Irshad and Mr. Vishal J. Dave, advanced several contentions to support separate trials. Primarily, they argued that absent charges under Sections 34 or 120B IPC, there was no allegation of conspiracy or common intention between Kejriwal and Singh. The acts were "different and distinct," not arising from the same transaction, thus falling outside the joinder provisions of Section 223 CrPC. They emphasized that Singh's evidence might "hamper the defense" of Kejriwal, causing irreparable prejudice, especially since the two held separate press conferences on different days with potentially varying statements.

Further, the counsel critiqued the lower courts' reasoning as "not germane to law," urging the High Court to quash the orders and direct separate proceedings. They relied on precedents like Avinash Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh (2006 Cr LJ 4152), where separate trials were ordered due to divergent investigations and charge-sheets; Balu Malhari Bhusari v. State of Maharashtra , highlighting prejudice in distinct offenses; and others such as Arvind Kejriwal v. State of Gujarat , Prabhu Chawla v. State of Rajasthan (2016) 16 SCC 30, and Arnab Manoranjan Goswami v. State of Maharashtra (2021) 2 SCC 427, to argue for protection of fair trial rights under Article 21 of the Constitution.

Opposing the petition, Additional Advocate General Mr. Mitesh Amin, assisted by Public Prosecutor Mr. Hardik Dave and Assistant Public Prosecutor Mr. Himanshu Patel, contended that the acts formed part of the "very same transaction," necessitating joint trials for efficiency. The lower courts had correctly rejected separation, and no interference was warranted. They stressed the sequence of events post the High Court's March 31, 2023, order, portraying the press conferences as interconnected responses.

Respondent No. 2's senior counsel, Mr. Nirupam D. Nanavaty, with Mr. Amit N. Nair and Mr. Vinit A. Nair, echoed these points, arguing the acts dealt with the "same transaction" and that the issue of separate trials had already been raised and discarded in prior proceedings like Special Criminal Application No. 12429 of 2023. They highlighted Kejriwal's absence from trial court and non-cooperation, rendering inherent powers under Section 528 BNSS inapplicable. Evidence against both would be "common," including videos and statements targeting the university's credibility. They cited Mamman Khan v. State of Haryana (2025 AIJEL-SC 75870), State v. Mangtu Ram (1961 AIJEL-RJ 1803061), and Sushil Kumar Tiwari v. Hare Ram Sah (2025 AIJEL-SC 75808) to support joint trials in linked factual matrices. Nanavaty assured the court that no separate evidence sets would be adduced, countering prejudice claims as mere "apprehension."

Legal Analysis

The Gujarat High Court's reasoning centered on interpreting "same transaction" under Section 223 CrPC, which permits joinder of accused when their offenses arise from interconnected facts forming a series of acts. Justice Mengdey meticulously traced the timeline: the CIC order, the university's successful challenge on March 31, 2023, Kejriwal's press conference and tweet on April 1, and Singh's on April 2. Despite no conspiracy charges, the court inferred a "political strategy" from the leaders' positions in AAP and the thematic consistency of questioning the degree post-judgment. This rendered the acts part of the same transaction, with common evidence like press videos and university records.

The judgment distinguished this from cited precedents. In Avinash Singh , separate trials were mandated due to dual investigations (local police and CBI) yielding disparate charge-sheets—unlike the unified complaint here. Similarly, Balu Malhari Bhusari involved unrelated rape incidents at different times and places, unlike the sequential, thematically linked press conferences. The court noted that prejudice claims were unsubstantiated "bare assertions," with no record indicating specific harm, especially since pleas were recorded pre-application and evidence would overlap. It invoked principles from Arnab Goswami on fair trials but prioritized procedural economy, cautioning against using inherent powers to benefit absconding parties.

Broader legal principles applied include the balance between fair trial (Article 21) and judicial efficiency. The court referenced Section 223's objective to avoid multiplicity of trials for related offenses, aligning with Supreme Court views in Prabhu Chawla on prejudice thresholds. No new sections were invoked beyond Section 500 IPC, but the analysis clarified that absence of Sections 34/120B does not preclude joinder if facts show unity. News reports on the "PM Modi degree row" were integrated to contextualize the political stakes, noting how such cases test defamation laws in electoral discourse, potentially chilling free speech under Article 19(1)(a) while protecting reputational rights under Article 21.

Key Observations

The judgment contains several pivotal excerpts that illuminate the court's rationale:

1. "Thus, it appears that after this Court allowed petition filed by the University challenging the order passed by the Central Information Commission, the petitioner as well as the other co-accused addressed the Press Conferences back to back making certain statements and uploaded the videos of respective Press Conferences on their respective Twitter handles. The respondent no.2 found this act defamatory..."

This highlights the temporal and factual linkage, establishing the "same transaction."

1. "Even though, the provisions of Section 120(B) and Section 34 of the IPC are not invoked against the petitioner as well as co-accused in the complaint, it appears that the petitioner and co-accused had decided to address the Press Conference as a part of their political strategy..."

The court infers coordination despite no formal charges, emphasizing contextual evidence over strict pleading.

1. "Having regard to the allegations levelled against the petitioner as well as other co-accused, it appears that the evidence which would be adduced against them during the course of trial would be the same. Therefore, there is no reason for conducting separate trial against the petitioner as well as the other co-accused."

This addresses the commonality of evidence, rebutting prejudice claims.

1. "So far as the aspect of prejudice being caused to the petitioner is concerned, except bare assertion in that regard, there is nothing on record to indicate as to what prejudice would be caused to the petitioner. It is merely an apprehension being voiced by the petitioner..."

Justice Mengdey demands concrete proof, not speculation, for separating trials.

These observations, drawn verbatim, underscore the court's fact-driven approach, integrating the political context without delving into merits of the defamation allegations.

Court's Decision

In its operative order, the Gujarat High Court unequivocally dismissed the petition as "devoid of merits." Justice Mengdey held: "Having regard to these facts, the present petition is devoid of merits and the same is hereby dismissed." No stay was granted, and the trial in Criminal Case No. 29303 of 2023 before the 2nd Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate shall proceed jointly against Kejriwal and Singh.

The implications are multifaceted. Practically, it compels a unified trial, streamlining proceedings and reducing judicial backlog in a case laden with political overtones. For Kejriwal, it means facing Singh's evidence in tandem, potentially complicating defenses if statements diverge, though the court found no such risk. Broader effects include reinforcing joint trials in defamation suits involving coordinated public actions, particularly in political scenarios. This may deter frivolous separation pleas, promoting efficiency under CrPC/BNSS, but raises concerns for opposition leaders in high-profile cases, possibly impacting free speech.

Future cases could cite this for "same transaction" in social media-amplified defamations, especially post-RTI disputes. It signals courts' wariness of inherent powers for non-cooperative accused, urging attendance. In the "degree row" context, as noted in press coverage of Kejriwal's press conference as "political strategy," this sustains scrutiny on Modi's qualifications without halting the underlying trial, balancing reputational harm against democratic discourse. Overall, the decision fortifies procedural integrity in politically sensitive litigation, likely influencing similar AAP-BJP clashes.