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.
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. 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. He also asked why Verma, a 10-year MP from west Delhi, had stayed silent on the child’s case.
“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. 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. 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. 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.
