"Asking Questions Not Defamation": Delhi Court On Parvesh Verma's Plea Against AAP Leader

In a setback to Deputy Chief Minister of Delhi, Parvesh Verma, a court dismissed his criminal defamation case against Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader Saurabh Bhardwaj, adding that merely asking questions from a public representative cannot amount to defamation.

The Delhi court said there does not exist sufficient ground for taking cognisance of the offence and opined that posts and videos on X posted by Saurabh Bhardwaj were in the nature of questions asked with the purpose to criticise the government and not to defame anyone.

"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," the court said.

The court noted that some facts prima facie show that the complainant Verma did not approach the court with clean hands. 

What Was The Case?

Delhi minister Parvesh Varma had alleged that Saurabh Bhardwaj lowered his reputation in the eyes of the public by making insinuations of corruption, nepotism through his posts. He further said that the AAP leader, through his social media posts, made allegations that Varma used influence to favour some accused in a POCSO case.

Parvesh Varma went on to mention more accusations levelled by former Delhi minister against him relating to a school trust and appointment of the Varma's alleged close associate as a trustee there. 

The Delhi Deputy Chief Minister said that Bhardwaj made these statements without any verification or due diligence, solely with ulterior motive of gaining political mileage and tarnishing the image of the complainant. 

ALSO READ| High Court Seeks Reply From Delhi Police, Parvesh Verma In Slapgate Row

Why Court Dismissed The Case

In its order, the Delhi court emphasised that questions 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 added that any contrary view will rather be a dark spell in the era of democracy paving way for utter disregard of the constitutional rights. 

One important aspect that the court mentioned is that people who approach the court for relief are under a contract with the court that they would state the whole case fully and fairly and where the litigant has broken such faith, the discretion of the court cannot be exercised in favour of such a litigant. 

The court also noted that, in the present case, the proposed accused is the Official spokesperson of Aam Aadmi Party which is the official opposition in the Delhi Legislative Assembly. 

Thus, 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 scrutinise their policies by acting as a watchdog, the court noted. 

The entire framework has been developed in such a manner so as to restrict the ruling party from misusing power or developing authoritarian tendencies, it added.

The court further said that the public has both; right and interest - to know about the same, and viewed from this perspective, the statements made by the proposed accused squarely fits in this frame.