A Delhi court dismissed Satyendar Jain’s defamation plea against BJP MP Bansuri Swaraj, saying her remarks echoed ED’s official tweet. The court warned ED against spreading misleading or sensational content.
New Delhi: On July 31, A Delhi court has dismissed an appeal filed by Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader Satyendar Kumar Jain. He had challenged an earlier trial court order that rejected his criminal defamation complaint against Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) Member of Parliament Bansuri Swaraj.
Jain had accused Swaraj of making defamatory comments about him during a television interview.
The court said there were not enough legal grounds to take action against Swaraj and supported the decision made by the lower magisterial court.
ALSO READ: “Played With My Reputation”: AAP Leader Satyendar Jain Files Defamation Case Against BJP MP Bansuri Swaraj
Special Judge Jitendra Singh observed that merely repeating information already in the public domain does not amount to defamation and highlighted that the Enforcement Directorate (ED), which had originally tweeted the details in question, holds the responsibility of sharing only accurate and reliable information with the public.
Jain had filed the complaint after Bansuri Swaraj appeared in a TV interview on October 5, 2023. During the interview, she allegedly claimed that Rs 3 crore in cash, 1.8 kilograms of gold, and 133 gold coins were recovered from Jain’s house.
Jain denied these claims and said they were false and damaging to his reputation.
Earlier, on February 20, the trial court had rejected Jain’s criminal defamation case, which carries a maximum punishment of up to two years in prison.
Dissatisfied with that decision, Jain approached the higher court, but his revision petition has now also been dismissed.
While delivering the order, the court emphasized that for a case to proceed, there must be a prima facie case, meaning the complaint should clearly show that a wrong has occurred. In this matter, the court said that requirement was not met.
The court examined the statement made by Swaraj and her defense. Swaraj had filed a reply stating that her comments in the interview were not new allegations but simply a repetition of an official tweet by the Enforcement Directorate from June 6, 2022.
ALSO READ: CBI Ordered to Update Case Diary in AAP’s Satyendar Jain Disproportionate Assets Case
That tweet stated that cash and gold had been found during searches at premises linked to Satyendar Jain.
Judge Singh said,
“Upon consideration of the material on record, it is evident that the statement attributed to the proposed accused (Swaraj) is a verbatim reiteration of a tweet published by the ED through its official social media handle.”
The court clarified that Swaraj did not invent or manipulate any facts. She had only repeated what had been officially posted by a government investigation agency.
As the judge noted,
“There is no compulsion stated or brought on record that the proposed accused had any independent means or obligation to verify the veracity of the said content, particularly as the tweet pertains to investigative findings arising from a search conducted by the ED.”
The court also said that since there was no evidence of bad intentions or malice from Swaraj, there was no reason to believe that her aim was to harm Jain’s reputation. Therefore, no legal case could proceed against her.
However, the court gave a strong message to the Enforcement Directorate regarding how it shares information. It said that the ED, being an investigative agency, must ensure that all information it puts out is correct and not misleading.
The judge stressed,
“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.”
In a significant remark that could have wider implications, the court said that misleading or biased presentation of facts by an agency like the ED could cause harm not just to individuals but to the justice system itself.
ALSO READ: [BREAKING] Money Laundering Case| Delhi Court Rejects Satyendar Jain’s Final Bail Plea
The judge stated,
“The presentation of facts in a manner that was misleading, scandalous, or intended to defame or politically prejudice an individual would not only undermine the agency’s integrity but could also amount to an abuse of power and violation of an individual’s fundamental rights, including the right to reputation under Article 21 of the Constitution.”
Finally, dismissing the revision plea by Jain, Judge Singh concluded that there was no need to interfere with the earlier decision of the trial court.
He said,
“I am in complete concurrence with the conclusion of the trial court that there were insufficient grounds to take cognisance.”
Click Here to Read More Reports On Satyendar Jain
