Gujarat High Court Rejects Arvind Kejriwal Plea in PM Degree Defamation Case

In a legal setback for former Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal, the Gujarat High Court has dismissed his plea seeking a separate trial in a criminal defamation case linked to remarks made on the educational qualifications of Prime Minister Narendra Modi.

The case stems from statements made by leaders of the Aam Aadmi Party questioning the authenticity of the Prime Minister’s academic degree. Kejriwal had approached the High Court requesting that his trial be conducted separately from that of senior AAP leader Sanjay Singh, arguing that the allegations and circumstances attributed to each accused were distinct and should not be clubbed together.

While pronouncing the order, Justice M R Mengdey dismissed the application, effectively upholding earlier judicial decisions that rejected Kejriwal’s demand for a separate trial. With this ruling, the High Court has cleared the way for the continuation of joint proceedings in the defamation case.

Earlier, Kejriwal had challenged a December 15, 2025 order passed by a city sessions court in Ahmedabad. That order had dismissed his revision plea seeking to quash a September 23, 2023 directive of a magistrate court, which had refused to separate the trials. The magistrate court had taken the view that the allegations against both accused were connected closely enough to warrant a single proceeding.

In his submissions before the sessions court and later the High Court, Kejriwal argued that trying both accused together would be contrary to the principles of justice. He maintained that the alleged remarks attributed to him and those linked to Sanjay Singh were based on separate transactions and independent circumstances. According to the plea, clubbing both matters into one complaint could prejudice the defence and blur individual accountability.

However, the courts did not accept this line of reasoning. The High Court’s dismissal indicates agreement with the lower courts’ assessment that the nature of the allegations and the context in which the statements were made justified a combined trial. Legal observers note that such decisions often hinge on whether the alleged acts form part of a common narrative or series of events, rather than being entirely unrelated incidents.

The criminal defamation case has remained in focus due to its political implications and its connection to comments made about the Prime Minister’s educational background. The matter has been contested across multiple judicial levels, reflecting both its legal complexity and political sensitivity.

With the High Court’s ruling, Kejriwal’s options are now limited to pursuing further legal remedies, should he choose to do so. The order also reinforces the judiciary’s stance on preventing fragmentation of trials when courts believe a joint hearing better serves judicial efficiency and consistency.

The development marks an important moment in the ongoing case, as it removes a procedural hurdle and allows the trial process to move forward without further delay. The outcome is being closely watched in political and legal circles alike, given its broader implications for political speech, accountability, and defamation law in India.