Delhi court dismisses defamation case filed by AAP’s Satyendra Jain against BJP MP Bansuri Swaraj

A Delhi court on Thursday dismissed an appeal filed by Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader Satyendar Kumar Jain in a defamation case against Bharatiya Janata Party MP Bansuri Swaraj, citing that merely repeating information already in the public domain does not amount to defamation.

The court also criticised the Enforcement Directorate (ED), which had initially posted on X the information shared by the BJP MP, saying that the central agency holds the responsibility of sharing only accurate and non-misleading information with the public.

Special Judge Jitendra Singh of the Rouse Avenue Courts observed that sufficient ground does not exist for taking cognisance of the offence as defined and punishable under Section 356 of the BNS.

The case filed by Mr. Jain is based on “defamatory” comments about him during a television interview by Ms. Swaraj. The AAP leader stated that during the interview, Ms. Swaraj allegedly claimed that ₹3 crore in cash, 1.8 kilograms of gold, and 133 gold coins were recovered from the AAP leader’s house. The ED also shared this information on its social media handle. Mr. Jain alleged that the statement made on TV had damaged his reputation.

Mr. Jain had challenged a trial court order that rejected his criminal defamation complaint against the BJP MP earlier this year.

In a strongly worded message, the court said that it is incumbent upon an investigative agency such as the ED to act impartially and uphold the principles of fairness and due process. “Any dissemination of information, including but not limited to official social media platforms, must be accurate, non-misleading, and free from sensationalism,” the court said.

“The presentation of facts in a manner that is misleading, scandalous, or inten to defame or politically prejudice an individual would not only undermine the integrity of the agency but may also amount to an abuse of power and violation of the individual’s fundamental rights, including the right to reputation under Article 21 of the Constitution,” it said.

While dismissing the defamation case, the court added that there was no “willful misrepresentation or malicious intent” of the accused, hence Ms. Swaraj cannot be held liable for the alleged offence of defamation.

“If at all any statement is perceived as defamatory, the liability, if any, would lie with the source agency, i.e., the ED, which originally disseminated the information. The proposed accused, being a secondary communicator of officially released material, cannot be fastened with criminal liability, especially in the absence of intent to harm the reputation of the Complainant,” it added.