A Delhi court dismisses Deputy CM Parvesh Verma’s criminal defamation complaint against AAP leader Saurabh Bharadwaj, refusing to take cognisance of the complaint.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
New Delhi: A Delhi court at the Rouse Avenue Courts on Saturday dismissed the criminal defamation complaint filed by Delhi Deputy Chief Minister Parvesh Verma against Aam Aadmi Party leader Saurabh Bharadwaj, declining to take cognisance of the complaint [Parvesh Sahib Singh Verma v. Saurabh Bharadwaj].
The order was passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Neha Mittal. The court held that the imputations complained of were in the nature of questions and did not amount to defamation.
The complaint
Verma alleged that Bharadwaj, in posts on X, Instagram and Facebook in May, insinuated that Verma had used his political influence to favour officials of a school connected with a case under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act. Verma described the statements as malicious, false and full of lies. These are the complainant’s allegations. The child concerned is not identified here.
The proceedings
The court recorded Verma’s statement and witness testimony in July, and heard arguments at the pre-cognisance stage in August and September. During the proceedings, the court restrained Verma and his associates from deleting or altering the specified posts, and directed platforms such as X and Meta to preserve digital data and server logs. Bharadwaj’s specific submissions are not stated in the material available.
What the Court held
The court declined to take cognisance, holding that the statements, as framed, were questions and not defamatory imputations. The detailed reasoning will be clear once the full order is available. The order is at the pre-cognisance stage, and it does not decide any dispute beyond whether the complaint disclosed an offence of defamation.
Why the order matters
At the pre-cognisance stage, a magistrate examines whether the complaint and the evidence recorded disclose an offence of defamation before issuing process. Here the court found that the statements, being in the form of questions, did not amount to defamation. Questions of whether a complainant may seek other remedies are not addressed in the material available.
The order records no finding on the truth or otherwise of the statements, and neither side’s political contentions have been adjudicated. Verma’s position is that the posts were malicious and false; the court did not accept that the imputations, as framed, constituted defamation. Whether the complainant challenges the order is not stated.
Case Title: Parvesh Sahib Singh Verma v. Saurabh Bharadwaj [case number not stated]
Bench: Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Neha Mittal, Rouse Avenue Courts, Delhi
Date of Order: October 10, 2026
Appearances: not stated