A Delhi court has refused to take cognisance of a criminal defamation complaint filed by Delhi minister Parvesh Verma against Aam Aadmi Party leader Saurabh Bharadwaj, holding that the disputed social media remarks were questions aimed at criticising the government rather than defamatory statements.
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Neha Mittal dismissed the complaint on Saturday, according to the report cited by Live Hindustan. The court said there were insufficient grounds to proceed against Bharadwaj over videos and posts he shared on X.
The complaint arose from a dispute involving an incident at a school in Bharadwaj’s former constituency in west Delhi. Verma had alleged that Bharadwaj had shared malicious and false posts linking him to a case registered under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act. Verma said the posts had damaged his reputation.
The dispute followed an incident in the Vikaspuri area, where Verma allegedly slapped an Aam Aadmi Party supporter in public while inspecting a road after complaints about poor-quality public works. The two leaders subsequently exchanged allegations over the episode and related issues.
In its order, the court said Bharadwaj’s posts and videos had posed questions while criticising the government. It distinguished such questioning from an attempt to defame an individual. The court also observed that in a democracy, asking questions about a law-and-order situation or another public matter is not only the right of citizens and the media; governments must also sometimes hear views that differ from their own.
The ruling is relevant to disputes over public accountability because the complaint was connected to political criticism following an inspection of civic works. It does not determine the truth of the underlying allegations about the school case, the road quality or the public incident. Instead, the court’s decision concerned whether the material relied upon by Verma provided sufficient grounds to begin criminal defamation proceedings.
The court also criticised the manner in which the complaint had been presented. It said that people seeking relief from a court enter into an understanding that they will disclose the complete matter truthfully and honestly. If that confidence is breached, the court cannot exercise its discretion in their favour, according to the report.
The dismissal means the complaint will not proceed at the cognisance stage. The supplied report does not indicate any further hearing or appeal arising from the decision.
