The Supreme Court on Monday deferred by six weeks hearing on a plea of Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal challenging a Delhi High Court order upholding the summons issued to him in a criminal defamation case for retweeting an allegedly defamatory video circulated by YouTuber Dhruv Rathee in 2018.

A bench of justices Sanjiv Khanna, Sanjay Kumar and R Mahadevan posted the matter for hearing after six weeks after senior advocate Abhishek Singhvi, appearing for Kejriwal, sought some more time to work out a settlement.

"We express regret but some more time may be given (for settlement). Currently, too many things are going on in this man's life," Singhvi submitted.

Advocate Raghav Awasthi, appearing for the complainant, submitted that time may be given (to Kejriwal) but it should not be unlimited and some negotiations have to take place.

Singhvi submitted that although he (Kejriwal) expresses regret for the tweet but it cannot be on his (complainant's) terms.

The bench posted the matter for hearing after six weeks to enable the parties reach a settlement.

Earlier, Kejriwal has admitted that he "committed a mistake" by retweeting the alleged defamatory video.

On March 11, the top court asked Kejriwal whether he wanted to give an apology to the complainant in the matter.

Kejriwal had on February 26 told the apex court that he made a mistake by retweeting the allegedly defamatory video related to the BJP IT Cell.

The counsel appearing for complainant Vikas Sankrityayan had told the top court that Kejriwal may issue an apology on social media platforms like microblogging platform 'X' or Instagram.

On February 26, the apex court, without issuing notice on Kejriwal's plea challenging the high court order, had asked the complainant whether he wanted to close the matter in view of the petitioner accepting it was a mistake.

The top court had asked the trial court not to take up the defamation case involving Kejriwal till further orders.

In its February 5 verdict, the high court said that reposting alleged libellous content would attract the defamation law.

It said a sense of responsibility has to be attached while retweeting content about which one does not have knowledge and added that retweeting defamatory content must invite penal, civil as well as tort action if the person retweeting it does not attach a disclaimer.

The high court, while refusing to quash the trial court's 2019 order summoning Kejriwal, had said when a public figure tweets a defamatory post, the ramifications extend far beyond a mere whisper in someone's ears.

It had said if the act of retweeting or reposting is allowed to be misused as it is still considered to be a vacant grey area of law, it will encourage people with ill intentions to misuse it and conveniently take a plea that they had merely retweeted a content.

The chief minister had said in the high court that the trial court failed to appreciate that his tweet was not intended or likely to harm the complainant.

Sankrityayan claimed the YouTube video titled 'BJP IT Cell Part II' was circulated by Rathee, who lives in Germany, "wherein a number of false and defamatory allegations were made".

Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by The Telegraph Online staff and has been published from a syndicated feed.