Defamation Case: Delhi Court Turns Down Satyender Jain’s Appeal Against Bansuri Swaraj

Defamation Case

A Delhi court on Thursday dismissed AAP leader Satyendar Kumar Jain’s appeal challenging a trial court order that had refused to take cognisance of his defamation complaint against BJP MP Bansuri Swaraj.

Jain had alleged that Swaraj made false and defamatory remarks against him during a television interview.

The court upheld the magisterial court’s earlier ruling, stating that there were “insufficient grounds to proceed” with the case and emphasized that Swaraj merely reiterated facts officially shared by the Enforcement Directorate (ED), without adding or distorting information.

No Prima Facie Case- Court

Special Judge Jitendra Singh ruled that taking cognisance of a criminal complaint requires evaluating whether it discloses a prima facie case justifying legal action. The court found no such merit in Jain’s complaint.

Jain’s case centred on a TV interview from October 5, 2023, where Swaraj allegedly claimed that ₹3 crore in cash, 1.8 kg of gold, and 133 gold coins were recovered from his residence. Jain claimed the remarks were defamatory and untrue.

However, the court observed that Swaraj had merely reiterated content from a June 6, 2022 tweet by the ED. The judge noted, “Upon consideration of the material on record, it is evident that the statement attributed to the proposed accused (Swaraj) is a verbatim reiteration of a tweet published by the ED through its official social media handle.”

No Malicious Intent Found

The court further said that Swaraj did not fabricate or independently verify the information, nor was she obligated to. “There is no compulsion stated or brought on record that the proposed accused had any independent means or obligation to verify the veracity of the said content,” the order stated.

In the absence of any material suggesting malicious intent, the court concluded that there was no prima facie evidence to establish that Swaraj aimed to defame Jain. It held that the remarks were based on publicly available information shared by a government agency.

ED Must Disseminate Accurate, Non-Misleading Information

While ruling in Swaraj’s favour, the court also issued a strong reminder to investigative agencies like the ED regarding responsible communication.

“It is incumbent upon an investigative agency such as the ED to act impartially and uphold the principles of fairness and due process,” the court said, stressing that any official dissemination of information must be “accurate, non-misleading, and free from sensationalism.”

The judge warned that if facts were presented in a misleading or politically motivated manner, it could “amount to an abuse of power and violation of an individual’s fundamental rights, including the right to reputation under Article 21 of the Constitution.”

Final Verdict

Dismissing Jain’s revision petition, the judge said he was in complete agreement with the trial court’s conclusion. Since no intentional defamation could be inferred from Swaraj’s remarks, the complaint did not warrant criminal prosecution.

Criminal defamation in India carries a maximum punishment of two years in prison, but the court found no grounds to proceed with the case in this instance.