A Delhi court dismissed Union Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman’s plea to bar AAP leader Somnath Bharti from representing his wife, Lipika Mitra, in a defamation case. The court stated that “husband and wife are two separate individuals” with distinct legal interests.
A Delhi court on Wednesday dismissed a plea filed by Union Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman seeking to prevent Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader and lawyer Somnath Bharti from representing his wife, Lipika Mitra, in the defamation case filed against her by Mitra.
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (ACJM) Paras Dalal of the Rouse Avenue Court emphasized that
“in the eyes of law, husband and wife are two separate individuals having different proprietary and pecuniary interests.”
The court clarified that although spouses may be concerned about each other’s rights and interests,
“the same cannot be questioned to be unethical and immoral.”
The court further observed,
“This Court finds no bar to spouse prosecuting for or defending his/ her spouse. There is no bar to even claim for maximum possible punishment or compensation, even when spouse is defending or prosecuting for his/ her spouse. In law, the husband and wife are two separate natural person and their pecuniary interests may be different.”
Sitharaman had requested the court to direct Bharti to step down as Mitra’s counsel, arguing that his marital relationship with the complainant and potential pecuniary interests could create a conflict of interest.
She also submitted that Bharti might be called as a witness in the case, which, she claimed, would lead to a conflict.
However, the court noted Mitra’s statement that Bharti was not included in the list of witnesses and that
“she has no intention to call him to the witness box.”
The court also addressed Sitharaman’s participation in the proceedings, stating,
“The proposed accused accordingly, may watch the proceedings of the present case, but she cannot be heard until complainant and witnesses are examined, subject to condition that prima facie case is made out to proceed to such stage.”
Additionally, the court rejected an application filed by Mitra seeking to waive the costs of ₹5,000 imposed earlier for non-appearance.
The judge clarified,
“This Court is thus not inclined to allow the present application. The same is rejected and cost imposed vide Order dated 16.07.2025 be paid by the complainant side by the next date of hearing.”
The defamation case arises from allegations that during the 2024 Lok Sabha elections, Sitharaman made
“defamatory, derogatory and libelous remarks in print and electronic media”
against Mitra and Bharti. Mitra claims that the BJP leader made false statements about alleged marital discord between her and Bharti for political advantage.
In the case, Advocates Anand Prakash Gautam and Samta Sharma represented Mitra along with Bharti, while Advocates Zoheb Hossain, Sanjeev Menon, and Satyam appeared for Sitharaman.
Click Here to Read Previous Reports on CJI B.R. Gavai
