Read Time: 08 minutes

Synopsis

The Rouse Avenue Court, on Thursday, refused to take cognizance in a defamation suit filed by Satyendar Jain against Bansuri Swaraj and Aaj Tak Channel for making defamatory statements against him in an interview aired on October 5, 2023. 

However, Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Neha Mittal held, “the statement made by proposed accused no. 1 (Bansuri Swaraj) was a mere reiteration of the information which was already propagating in the public and hence, cannot be said to have been made with the intent to harm the reputation of the complainant (Satyendar Jain)”. 

Jain, represented by Advocate Rajat Bhardwaj, asserted that the statements aimed to defame him and gain undue political advantage. He emphasized his high repute as a three-time Member of the Legislative Assembly from Shakur Basti, Delhi, and his tenure handling various ministries in the Government of the National Capital Territory of Delhi, including Health and Family Welfare, Industries, Home, Water, Urban Development, and Irrigation and Flood Control Departments.

According to Jain, these statements completely tarnished his reputation. On October 20, 2024, two of his well-wishers, Deepak Kumar Jain and Pradeep Kumar, visited him and behaved rudely, expressing their disappointment and referring to a social media post where Swaraj was seen making the statements. Despite Jain's efforts to convince them otherwise and showing them the ED's panchnama indicating no recoveries, they refused to believe him. This incident, as per Jain, caused irreparable damage to his public standing, leading him to file the complaint.

In response, Swaraj submitted documents asserting that no defamation offense was made out. She presented copies of bail orders from the Trial Court to the Supreme Court in the ED case against Jain. Additionally, she provided a copy of the ED's tweet from June 7, 2022, and related news articles quoting the same information.

During the hearing, Jain argued that Swaraj’s statements were factually incorrect, as the ED’s tweet and news reports indicated that cash was recovered from Jain’s accomplices, not from him. Advocate Bhardwaj contended that as the ED and CBI cases against Jain were sub judice, public comments on them were impermissible. Advocate Bhardwaj further asserted that bail order observations could not determine guilt and that the ED's panchnama confirmed no recoveries from Jain’s house.

However, Swaraj argued that the alleged defamatory statements were based on widely known information and reiterated the ED’s official statement. It was asserted that the complaint was politically motivated, filed over a year after the interview and just before the Delhi Legislative Assembly elections. It was also submitted that Jain had been in custody for 2.5 years, implying his reputation was already compromised.

The court examined the legal aspects of cognizance under Section 223 BNSS, emphasizing the limited role of Swaraj at this stage. 

Upon analyzing the case, the court held that Swaraj merely reiterated publicly available information, negating any intent to defame. The court further rejected the argument that Aaj Tak, being a juristic entity, lacked the mens rea for defamation, noting that cognizance applied to the offense rather than the offender.

“The contention raised by Ld. Counsel for proposed accused no. 2 is that the proposed caused no. 2, being a juristic entity, cannot have the necessary mens rea to commit the offence of defamation”, the court observed. 

In conclusion, the court found no sufficient ground to take cognizance of the alleged offense under Section 356 BNS. No other offense was found to be made out from the complaint and accompanying documents. Accordingly, the court declined to take cognizance of the case.

For Complainant: Advocates Rajat Bhardwaj and Kaustubh Khanna
For Accused: Advocates Paritosh Anil, T. Illayarasu, Manya Hasija Yadharth Gupta and Anurag Mishra
Case Title: Satyender Kumar Jain v Bansuri Swaraj (CT Case No.23/2024)