Satyender Jain Challenges Trial Court Order Refusing Cognizance Of Complaint Against Bansuri Swaraj

Defamation Case

AAP leader and former Delhi Minister Satyendar Jain has filed a revision petition challenging a trial court’s decision to dismiss his defamation complaint against BJP MP Bansuri Swaraj.

The Rouse Avenue Sessions Court has scheduled the matter for consideration on March 12 and has summoned the trial court records.

Jain, represented by advocate Rajat Bhardwaj, had previously filed a defamation complaint against Swaraj for allegedly making defamatory remarks about him in connection with an Enforcement Directorate raid.

However, on February 20, 2025, Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (ACJM) Neha Mittal declined to take cognizance of the complaint.

Jain alleged that during a television interview on October 5, 2023, Swaraj made statements intended to tarnish his reputation and gain political mileage. The remarks, viewed by millions, reportedly included claims that Rs 3 crore, 1.8 kg of gold, and 133 gold coins were recovered from his residence during the ED raid. Jain, who is currently on bail in the related case, asserted that these statements were false and defamatory.

He further claimed that Swaraj defamed him by labeling him as “corrupt” & “fraud.”

According to Jain, the accusations severely impacted his reputation, both personally & politically. He stated that the allegations had a “cascading effect” on his relationships as a husband, father, and member of society, and had irreparably damaged his standing as an elected representative.

The complaint also sought to implicate the news channel that aired the interview. On December 16, 2024, the court issued a pre-summoning notice to both Swaraj and the channel, instructing them to present pre-summoning evidence.

Previous Hearing

During a hearing on January 13, Swaraj’s counsel, advocate Siddhesh Kotwal, argued that the complaint was politically motivated, claiming Jain was using it for electoral advantage. Kotwal also contended that the statements were based on publicly available information and court observations. Jain had been in custody in the same case, and his bail applications were previously rejected.

With the revision petition now before the Sessions Court, Jain hopes to overturn the trial court’s decision and move forward with his defamation case.

The matter will be reconsidered on March 12.