Back
A Delhi court has dismissed the complaint filed by Deputy Chief Minister Parvesh Verma against Aam Aadmi Party leader Saurabh Bharadwaj, declining to take of the matter after observing that the social media posts in question were in the nature of asking questions and did not amount to defamation.
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Neha Mittal of the passed the order on Saturday, effectively ending the case at the threshold without issuing any to Bharadwaj or commencing a trial. The ruling marks a significant procedural setback for Verma, who had alleged that Bharadwaj’s posts on , Instagram, and Facebook damaged his reputation by linking him to a case involving a three-year-old child at a private school in West Delhi.
Case Dismissed at Threshold
The magistrate’s refusal to take means the complaint was not entertained as a valid legal proceeding. Under criminal procedure, when a magistrate declines , the complainant cannot proceed further unless the order is challenged in a higher court. The case therefore ends at the initial stage, with no trial or examination of witnesses on the merits.
Verma had approached the court in May 2026, alleging that Bharadwaj’s social media posts were “malicious, false and full of lies” and insinuated that Verma used his political influence to favour officials of the school involved in the POCSO case. The Deputy CM claimed that the posts harmed not only his own reputation but also that of his family, and that he had contested elections four times with an established political standing.
Posts That Sparked the Complaint
According to the complaint, Bharadwaj posted video clips and tweets on , bringing Verma’s name into discussions surrounding the school incident. Verma maintained that neither he nor his family had any connection with the school or its trust, and that he had played no role in appointing any trust member. He further alleged that Bharadwaj falsely claimed that Verma made the trust’s files disappear.
Verma recorded his statement before the court in July, with senior advocate appearing on his behalf. He stated that friends and party workers had sent him the posts on WhatsApp, and that two acquaintances told him they believed he was involved in the incident. Despite sending a , Verma said Bharadwaj neither contacted him nor apologised.
Court’s Reasoning on Defamation
While passing the order, ACJM Neha Mittal observed that the imputations allegedly made by Bharadwaj were in the nature of asking questions and did not amount to defamation under the law. The court did not find sufficient grounds to proceed against the AAP leader.
Legal experts note that for a statement to constitute under , it must contain an intended to harm the reputation of a person. The court’s finding that the posts were merely questions rather than assertions undermined the core of Verma’s complaint. The refusal to take also suggests that the magistrate did not see a case requiring further inquiry.
Procedural History and Data Preservation Orders
Earlier in the proceedings, the court had taken steps to preserve evidence. On , it restrained Verma and his associates from altering or deleting the specified social media posts and directed platforms and to preserve related digital logs and server logs. Witness statements had been scheduled for , but the arguments in August and September ultimately led to the dismissal.
The order brings to a close a high-profile political defamation case that had drawn attention due to the involvement of senior figures from rival parties. With no taken, the legal proceedings against Bharadwaj stand at the initial stage, and no further court dates are currently set. Verma may choose to challenge the dismissal in a higher court, but no such petition has been reported yet.
