The Delhi High Court on Wednesday directed BJP leader Tajinder Pal Singh Bagga to file a reply within four weeks to a plea filed by party colleague and former Rajya Sabha MP Subramanian Swamy, who is challenging a summons issued against him in a criminal defamation case.

Justice Ravinder Dudeja also granted Swamy two weeks to file a rejoinder after Bagga submits his response, and listed the matter for further hearing on August 26. The court clarified that Bagga’s response must address the issue of maintainability as well.

The defamation proceedings stem from a complaint filed by Bagga over a tweet posted by Swamy in September 2021, in which Swamy allegedly claimed that Bagga had been repeatedly jailed for petty crimes prior to joining the BJP. Bagga denies the allegations, claiming they were made with an intent to tarnish his reputation.

In March 2022, a magistrate found sufficient grounds to summon Swamy as an accused in the case. However, on April 4, 2022, the High Court stayed the trial court proceedings after Swamy challenged the summons and sought quashing of the case.

During Wednesday’s hearing, senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Swamy, informed the court that Bagga had not yet filed a reply. In response, Bagga’s counsel argued that Swamy was first required to make submissions on the maintainability of his petition, in accordance with an earlier court direction.

Justice Dudeja, however, emphasized that Bagga should go ahead and file his reply, addressing the issue of maintainability in it as well.

Earlier, the High Court had asked Swamy to justify why he approached it directly without first moving the sessions court after the summons was issued. Swamy’s counsel maintained that the magistrate’s order was misconceived and that the tweet in question had been misinterpreted. He also cited material in the public domain allegedly supporting the claim made in the tweet.

Nonetheless, Bagga, in his testimony, asserted that the allegations were baseless and damaging to his public image. The magistrate had found prima facie merit in the complaint and issued summons accordingly.