New Delhi [India], July 31 : The Rouse Avenue court on Thursday dismissed former Delhi Minister Satyender Jain's revision petition against the dismissal of his defamation complaint against BJP MP Bansuri Swaraj.
"In the absence of any material suggesting malicious intent, it cannot be prima facie inferred that the proposed accused (Bansuri Swaraj) acted with the intention to defame or malign the Complainant (Satyender Jain)," the court said.
Earlier, Jain's complaint was rejected by the magistrate court. Thereafter, he had moved in revision. The Magistrate court has declined Cognisance of the Complaint.
He had filed a defamation complaint against Bansuri Swaraj, alleging that she made a false statement against him in relation to an ED's raid at his residence.
It was alleged that she made a statement that Rs. 3 Crore in cash was recovered from his house, 1.8 kg of gold and 133 gold coins were seized from the same location.
On the other hand, Bansuri Swaraj's defence was that whatever she said was based on a tweet posted by the Enforcement Directorate (ED).
Special Judge Jitendra Singh dismissed the revision after considering the facts and submissions.
Special Judge Singh said, " This Court finds itself in full concurrence with the conclusions arrived at by the learned Trial Court, to the effect that sufficient ground does not exist to justify the invocation of jurisdiction for taking cognisance of the offence as defined and punishable under Section 356 of BNS. "
Therefore, the instant revision petition is dismissed, as ordered by the Special Judge on July 31.
While dismissing the revision, the court noted that the statement in question is founded upon an official communication issued by a government agency through its verified social media handle, that being ED (Enforcement Directorate), the agency that itself conducted the raid.
"Hence, any official tweet is rather what comes from the horse's mouth itself. The said statement is, therefore, based on information emanating from an official source and not from any private or unverified origin," the court held.
They rejected the revision petition; however, it emphasised that agencies like ED should act in an impartial manner.
" It is incumbent upon an investigative agency such as the ED to act impartially and uphold the principles of fairness and due process," the court said.
It further said that any dissemination of information, including but not limited to official social media platforms, must be accurate, non-misleading, and free from sensationalism.
"The presentation of facts in a manner that is misleading, scandalous, or intended to defame or politically prejudice an individual would not only undermine the integrity of the agency but may also amount to an abuse of power and violation of the individual's fundamental rights, including the right to reputation under Article 21 of the Constitution, Special judge Singh said.
The court noted that it is evident from the record that the statement attributed to the proposed accused is a verbatim reiteration of a tweet published by the ED through its official social media handle.
The proposed accused has neither fabricated facts nor disseminated any misleading information; rather, the statement in question merely reproduces what was officially communicated by the ED, the special judge added.
The court also said that there is no compulsion stated/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.
Advocate Rajat Bhardwaj appeared for Jain.
It was alleged that the proposed accused made defamatory statements against him during an interview aired on October 05, 2023, on a news Channel, with the intention to tarnish his reputation and gain undue political advantage. She made a defamatory statement in the interview.
The interview in question was broadcast both nationally and internationally, reaching a wide audience and resulting in severe harm to the public image of the complainant, it was alleged.
It was submitted that the cases involving ED and CBI against the Complainant remain sub judice, and as such, any public commentary on their merits is legally impermissible.