'Floccinaucinihilipilification', 'Worthless' Complaint: Why Delhi Court Dismissed Defamation Case Against Nirmala Sitharaman
Nupur Thapliyal
1 April 2026 8:14 PM IST
“Floccinaucinihilipilificationn” and “worthless” were the words used today by a Delhi Court while dismissing the criminal defamation case filed by Aam Aadmi Party leader Somnath Bharti's wife against Union Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharama.
ACJM Paras Dalal of Rouse Avenue Courts said that the impugned remarks made by Sitharaman in a press conference in 2024 were “political opposition and antagonism” aimed at the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) and Indi Alliance.
“The word is 'floccinaucinihilipilification', which implies 'something valueless or worthless'. The present complaint is nothing but the word stated above, wherein a valueless or worthless material has been stretched too long,” the Court said.
It added that a political opponent cannot be called to have defamed the other, when they are presenting certain scenarios against an opposite candidate.
“The press conference when seen in totality seems like narrations and political assertions made before the media and the public by the Sitharaman,” the Court said.
The complainant, Lipika Mitra, filed the criminal defamation case alleging commission of offences under Section 356(1) and 356(2) of BNS, 2023 for allegedly making and publishing defamatory, derogatory and libelous remarks in print and electronic media against her.
The complaint alleged that Sitharaman has made defamatory, false, and malicious statements in a press conference published on YouTube, which was broadcasted on Republic TV and NDTV news channels on May 17.
Mitra alleged that Sitharaman's statements were made by her during the election campaign of Loksabha, 2024, with the sole intention to tarnish her husband's reputation, and weaken his chances of winning from New Delhi Parliamentary Constituency as India Alliance Candidate.
Rejecting the case today, the judge said that Mitra's complaint generally stated that statements were made which were false, malicious and defamatory with ill intent to harm the reputation of the complainant and, except for the above, no other statement was quoted in the complaint to be defamatory.
Perusing Union Minister's remarks, the Court noted that the press conference was in response to the incident of a woman M.P. assaulted at the Official Residence of then Chief Minister of Delhi, Arvind Kejriwal, which was widely reported in the media.
“…and since it was during the General Election 2024 for Lok Sabha in India, the proposed accused who is siting Cabinet Minister did a press conference to target the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) to which complainant's husband/ Sh. Somnath Bharti belongs. The tone and tenor of the press conference is to target the opposition AAP and INDI Alliance,” the judge said.
It added: “Furthering her attack she names one Sharad Chauhan, Somnath Bharti and Amantullah Khan who she alleged are accused in cases filed by women. The proposed accused in particular did not mention, name or say anything against the complainant Ms. Lipika Mitra.”
Further, the Court observed that the statement as referred to Mitra, was neither imputed towards her, nor any of the statement was prima facie defamatory.
It added that to the extent of the statements quoted by Mitra in her complaint of alleged defamatory statement, the requirement of defamation was not made since neither the imputation was towards her, nor was there any imputation to harm the reputation.
“These statements of the proposed accused are not false or concocted, but complainant's own allegations against her husband Mr. Somnath Bharti, which were widely reported in the media. Even the complainant deposed as CW3 that there was marital discord in her family which was amicable settled, however, complainant never withdrew her allegations against her husband. The allegations of the complainant against her husband in earlier FIR are still readily present on the news and articles available online and is part of judicial orders,” the Court said.
It added that the press conference was aimed at suggesting to the media and the public that AAP and Indi Alliance was associated with persons who have allegation of assaulting women and that no allegations were made that have not already been made by Mitra in the past.
“Such averments and contentions are not imputation, rather political opposition and antagonism. A political opponent cannot be called to have defamed the other, when they are presenting certain scenarios against an opposite candidate. The press conference when seen in totality seems like narrations and political assertions made before the media and the public by the respondent,” the Court said.
“….the statements made by the respondent are nothing but political opposition and antagonism aimed at AAP and Indi Alliance. Nothing was aimed at the complainant Ms. Lipika Mitra and there is no imputation against her. Since no prima facie offence has been made out from the 'complaint of facts', this Court declines to take cognizance of the offence,” it added.