A Delhi court on Saturday, October 10, dismissed the criminal defamation complaint that Delhi Deputy Chief Minister Parvesh Verma had filed against Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader Saurabh Bhardwaj over a series of social media posts. Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Neha Mittal of the Rouse Avenue court refused to take cognisance of the complaint, which means the case will not proceed to trial.
What the court said
The magistrate held that Bhardwaj’s statements were worded as questions aimed at criticising the government and did not amount to defamation. The posts, the court noted, largely repeated information that had already been put out on social media by another person, Amarjit Singh Baboo, and so could not be said to have been made with the intention of harming Verma’s reputation.
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 the elected officials to, at times, listen to opinions which are different from their own.
Rouse Avenue court order
Legal news reports on the order also said the court remarked that the complainant had approached it with unclean hands.
What the dispute was about
Bhardwaj had used posts and videos on X, Instagram and Facebook to raise questions about the alleged appointment of Amarjit Singh Baboo as a trustee of the SS Mota Singh School Trust, a trust file that was reportedly missing, and the government’s handling of a case under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act involving a three-year-old girl.
In his complaint, Verma alleged that the AAP leader had published false and malicious content suggesting that he had used his political influence to help school officials linked to the POCSO case. He said the claims had damaged both his own reputation and that of his family.
Why it matters
The order is a setback for Verma, who holds the Deputy Chief Minister’s post in Delhi’s BJP government, and a relief for Bhardwaj, a senior AAP leader who has been a vocal critic of the government. It also draws a clear line between pointed political criticism framed as questions and statements that can be treated as defamatory in law.
In reaching that view, the magistrate relied on the idea that citizens, the press and opposition politicians are entitled to question those in power, and that officials are expected to tolerate views that differ from their own.
What happens next
Verma can challenge the magistrate’s refusal to take cognisance before a higher court if he chooses to pursue the matter. The underlying POCSO case is a separate matter and is not affected by Saturday’s ruling.
