A Delhi court has observed that merely asking questions from the government, particularly from a person acting as a public representative, cannot amount to defamation, emphasising that politicians must be prepared to face criticism in a democracy.

“Merely asking questions from another, especially from a person acting as a representative of the public in the Parliament, regarding any law & order situation or for that purpose, any other matter, cannot amount to defamation,” Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (ACJM) Neha Mittal of Rouse Avenue Courts observed.

The Court made the observation while declining to take cognizance of a criminal defamation complaint filed by Delhi Minister Parvesh Sahib Singh against Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader Saurabh Bharadwaj.

The complaint was filed over Bhardwaj's social media posts and videos concerning alleged irregularities in the appointment of a trustee of the SS Mota Singh School trust and the government's handling of a related POCSO case.

The judge observed that treating the act of questioning public representatives as defamation would amount to “a dark spell in the era of democracy.”

The court emphasised that the press and the public have a right to question the government, and elected representatives must be willing to listen to divergent opinions.

The complaint arose from social media posts and videos published by Bharadwaj in May, in which he raised questions concerning the alleged appointment of Amarjit Singh Baboo as a trustee of the school trust, a reportedly missing trust file, and the government's response to a POCSO case involving a three-year-old girl.

The court observed that the posts, read as a whole, reflected criticism of the government's functioning rather than defamatory imputations against the complainant.

It noted that a reasonable person reading the same would understand the posts as questioning the government's alleged lackadaisical attitude.

The court also underscored that the threshold for criminal defamation in public discourse involving political personalities and parties must be higher.

It observed that Bharadwaj, as an official spokesperson of the opposition AAP, had a public duty to question those in power, highlight shortcomings, criticise government actions and scrutinise policies.

Such scrutiny, the court said, serves as a watchdog against the misuse of power and authoritarian tendencies.

The court further noted that the posts referred to information already available in the public domain and found insufficient grounds to proceed with the defamation complaint.

It also observed that Verma approached the court with “unclean hands”, referring to social media posts suggesting that he had known Baboo since his college days, which appeared inconsistent with his assertion that he was not associated with him in any manner.

“A litigant who attempts to pollute the stream of justice or who touches the pure foundation of justice with tainted hands is not entitled to any relief. No litigant should be permitted to misuse the judicial process by filing frivolous petition,” the Court said.