Back
The has declined to take of a defamation complaint filed by Delhi Cabinet Minister Parvesh Sahib Singh against spokesperson Saurabh Bharadwaj, ruling that the alleged defamatory tweets and videos were political questions and criticism, not imputations intended to harm reputation. The court also found that the complainant did not approach the court with due to his undisclosed association with the individual at the center of the controversy.
The complaint, filed under read with , stemmed from multiple tweets and videos posted by Bharadwaj in May 2026 concerning the appointment of one Amarjeet Singh Babboo as a trustee of and the alleged disappearance of the school trust’s file from government records. Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Neha Mittal, after examining the complainant and three witnesses during a hearing, concluded that the statements did not meet the .
Court Finds Tweets Were Questions, Not Imputations
The court analysed the three tweets and two videos that formed the basis of the complaint. In tweets dated , Bharadwaj had questioned how Singh could appoint someone as a trustee of a private school trust and why the trust’s file had gone missing. One video transcript stated: “We asked how the file of the trust disappeared from the government? Parvesh Verma ji did not say that he will make the file public. How can our government make a file disappear?”
The magistrate held that “the statements made by the were inquisitive in nature. Though the questions in the present case are not as direct as were in but they cannot be taken out of the purview of the word ‘questions’.” The court further observed that a reasonable person reading those tweets “would carry an impression of lackadaisical attitude of the government and not become critical of only the complainant.”
Importantly, the court noted that Bharadwaj was merely quoting a Facebook post by Amarjeet Singh Babboo, in which Babboo thanked Singh for appointing him as trustee. The magistrate ruled that “the cannot be dragged into the net of merely for reproducing a fact which was already in , being posted on social media platform Facebook, and not repudiated/denied by the complainant till date.” Since Singh admitted in his examination that he was not involved in Babboo’s appointment, the court reasoned that the false statement was made by Babboo, not Bharadwaj.
Higher Threshold for Political Defamation Applied
The judgment underscored the elevated standard required for defamation cases involving political personalities. Citing orders in and , the magistrate stated: “The threshold has to be higher than usual, especially in context of public discourse amongst political personalities and parties.”
The court also referred to , where the held that public men must sometimes ignore vulgar criticism rather than prosecute. The magistrate wrote: “The culpability of a political opponent, the herein, has to be determined in light of not only the constitutionally guaranteed but also the willingness of the government to accept criticism and hence, the higher threshold requirement in such cases.”
Applying this standard, the court found that Bharadwaj, as official spokesperson of the opposition party, was performing a by questioning the government. The judgment cited , noting that statements made in performance of a are . “He 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,” the magistrate observed.
Complainant Did Not Approach Court with
A critical factor in the court’s decision was the complainant’s failure to disclose his association with Amarjeet Singh Babboo. In his examination, Singh stated under oath that he was “not associated with Amarjit Singh Baboo in any manner.” However, after Bharadwaj filed an application under seeking preservation of digital evidence, the complainant submitted copies of his own Facebook posts that contradicted this claim.
The court noted that one Facebook post from Singh’s account expressed gratitude to “Babbu Ji” for organising a medical camp in memory of his late father. Another post showed Singh greeting Babboo on his birthday, with the caption indicating they had known each other since college days. The magistrate held that these posts “ show that the complainant did not approach the Court with .” Relying on the ’s decision in , which states that “truth, like song, is whole, and half-truth can be noise,” the court concluded that the complainant was not entitled to any relief on this ground as well.
The court also found that the under was absent. Harm to reputation requires an made with intent to harm or knowledge that it would harm. Since Bharadwaj was only asking questions based on publicly available material, the court held that “the requisite intention for constituting the offence of defamation is not present.”
In its final order, the magistrate declined to take of the offence, stating that “there does not exist sufficient ground for taking of the .” The complaint was dismissed, and no were issued against Bharadwaj. The court specifically noted that the tweets and videos “were in the nature of questions asked with the purpose to criticize the government and not to defame anyone.” With this ruling, the legal proceedings initiated by the minister have been effectively shut down at the .
