NEW DELHI: A Delhi court on Saturday refused to take cognizance of a criminal defamation complaint filed by Delhi Cabinet minister Parvesh Verma against Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader Saurabh Bharadwaj, holding that “merely asking questions” to an elected representative cannot amount to defamation.
The order was passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Neha Mittal of Rouse Avenue courts, ruling that the alleged posts, which questioned the minister over a school trust and a child rape case, were not imputations against him.
“Merely asking questions from another, especially from a person acting as a representative of the public in the Parliament, regarding any law and order situation or for that purpose, any other matter, cannot amount to defamation,” the court said.
It added, “In a democracy, it is not only the right of the press and the public to ask the government questions, it is also the job of the government and elected officials to, at times, listen to opinions which are different from their own.”
The court warned that a contrary view “will rather be a dark spell in the era of democracy paving way for utter disregard of the constitutional rights.”
{{/usCountry}}The court warned that a contrary view “will rather be a dark spell in the era of democracy paving way for utter disregard of the constitutional rights.”
{{/usCountry}}The dispute arose in May 2026 over the alleged rape of a three-year-old girl in west Delhi and a school trust linked to the case. On May 15 and 16, Bharadwaj posted tweets and videos on X and YouTube, citing a Facebook post in which one Amarjit Singh Babbu thanked Verma for making him a trustee of the SS Mota Singh (Nila) Charitable Trust, which Bharadwaj described as “worth nearly ₹500 crore”.
Bharadwaj called Babbu a “close associate” of the minister. He asked why the trust’s file had not been made public and why it had “disappeared” from government records. He also asked why Verma, a 10-year MP from west Delhi, had stayed silent on the child’s case.
Verma, who holds portfolios including PWD, legislative affairs, and Irrigation and Flood Control in Delhi, filed the defamation complaint based on three posts on X and two YouTube videos.
Verma’s counsel, senior advocate Sachin Puri, argued that the posts insinuated corruption, nepotism and file suppression, and that the questions were imputations “clothed” as queries.
The complainant and three other witnesses were examined during the proceedings before notice was issued to Bharadwaj, who was represented by advocate Rajat Bhardwaj.
The court noted that Verma had testified that he was “not associated with Amarjit Singh Baboo in any manner” and had no role in his appointment. “If this is so, then in the opinion of this court, it is Amarjit Singh Baboo who publicly made a false statement,” it said.
“The proposed accused cannot be dragged into the net of criminal prosecution merely for reproducing a fact which was already in public domain,” the magistrate held.
The court also rejected the complainant’s attempt to question the Facebook post’s veracity, calling it an “afterthought” since he had relied on the document throughout.
On the May 16 video, the court said “the impression which is created is that the government is responsible for hiding the file,” and that the remarks about the minister were “more in the nature of a call to him to take a firm stand against the government on this issue.”
Relying on Supreme Court observations, the court noted that the threshold has to be higher than usual, especially in context of public discourse among political personalities and parties.” It also observed that those in public office “must not be too thin skinned in reference to comments made upon them.”
It also held that Bharadwaj, as the AAP’s official spokesperson in a party sitting in the Opposition, “owes a duty to the general public not only to put questions to those in power but also to highlight their shortcomings, criticise the government actions and scrutinize their policies by acting as a watchdog.” This brought the statements within the conditional privilege for statements made in performance of a moral duty, the court said.
Concluding, the court said the posts “were in the nature of questions asked with the purpose to criticize the government and not to defame anyone,” and that no other offence was made out. “Accordingly, cognizance in the present case is declined,” the court stated.
Stay updated with all top Cities including, Bengaluru, Delhi, Mumbai and more across India. Stay informed on the latest happenings in World News along with Delhi Election 2025 and Delhi Election Result 2025 Live, New Delhi Election Result Live, Kalkaji Election Result Live at Hindustan Times.
Stay updated with all top Cities including, Bengaluru, Delhi, Mumbai and more across India. Stay informed on the latest happenings in World News along with Delhi Election 2025 and Delhi Election Result 2025 Live, New Delhi Election Result Live, Kalkaji Election Result Live at Hindustan Times.