New Delhi: A Delhi court on Wednesday refused to take cognisance of a criminal defamation complaint against Union finance minister Nirmala Sitharaman, holding that no prima facie case was made out to proceed further.Additional chief judicial magistrate Paras Dalal of the Rouse Avenue Court observed that the court failed to find the “necessary ingredients of criminal defamation” in the complaint. Dismissing the plea, the court termed it “floccinaucinihilipilification” — an English word meaning something worthless — and remarked that “a valueless or worthless material has been stretched too long.”The complaint was filed by Lipika Mitra, wife of AAP leader Somnath Bharti, alleging that Sitharaman made defamatory remarks during a press conference in the run-up to the 2024 Lok Sabha elections.
According to Mitra, the statements, which were widely aired on news channels and circulated on social media, pertained to the couple’s matrimonial dispute and tarnished Bharti’s reputation, damaged his electoral prospects and caused mental anguish to the family, including their children.The impugned statement broadly referred to allegations that Bharti assaulted his wife during her pregnancy and was also accused of violence against a journalist in 2018.
Sitharaman highlighted these allegations while questioning Bharti’s candidature for the Lok Sabha.However, magistrate Dalal noted that the press conference and statements were “nothing more than political discourse between rival and competing parties”. The court observed that the tone and tenor of the address were aimed at targeting opposition parties, with Sitharaman citing “several instances” to argue that the AAP and the INDI Alliance were “not concerned with women safety and women representation in the Lok Sabha from Delhi.
”The court also flagged significant deficiencies in the complaint. While it elaborately detailed Bharti’s political and social standing, it was “bereft of the personal, social and educational background” of the complainant and failed to establish her individual identity. It further noted inconsistencies in witness depositions, observing that none specifically identified the allegedly defamatory statements, despite attributing them to Bharti’s electoral loss.While acknowledging that the 3-minute, 33-second press conference did take place and was widely broadcast, the court found that no statement was made against Mitra herself. The remarks were directed at Bharti and other AAP leaders. Crucially, the court held that Sitharaman was “merely reiterating complainant’s old allegations against her husband”, which already existed in the public domain through news reports and judicial or quasi-judicial records and had never been withdrawn.It concluded that the statements were “not false or concocted” but based on the complainant’s own allegations and dismissed the complaint as lacking merit.
