No Case Made Out: Delhi Court Dismisses Defamation Case Against Nirmala Sitharaman

The order dealt with multiple interlocutory applications in the case filed under Section 356(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, a summons trial offence.

The proposed accused, Nirmala Sitharaman, had moved an application seeking that Bharti be directed to withdraw as counsel, citing Rules 6 and 9 of the Bar Council of India Rules. It was argued that Bharti, being the complainant’s husband, had a “personal and pecuniary interest” in the case, potentially compromising objectivity. The defence also pointed out that references to Bharti’s own reputation were made in the complaint, which could make him a probable witness.

Rejecting the plea, the Court observed that “mere conjugal relation does not create a bar on an advocate representing his or her spouse.” The magistrate held that while advocates must act as officers of the court and not derive personal benefits from litigation, the law treats husband and wife as “two separate individuals having different proprietary and pecuniary interests.”

Citing Rule 9 of the Bar Council Rules as “advisory and not mandatory,” the Court noted that Bharti’s representation could not be presumed unethical or prejudicial solely because of his marital relationship with the complainant. The Court further clarified that unless an advocate’s conduct shows actual conflict of interest or ethical breach, no order of disqualification can be made.

On the procedural aspect, the Court also referred to the Delhi High Court’s recent ruling in Brand Protectors India Pvt. Ltd. v. Anil Kumar, emphasizing that the proposed accused may only “watch the proceedings” until the complainant and her witnesses are examined. The Court also dismissed an application by the complainant seeking waiver of the Rs. 5,000 cost imposed earlier for non-appearance, directing payment by the next date of hearing.

Previously, in July, the Court had imposed a fine of Rs. 5,000 on Lipika Mitra, wife of former AAP MLA Somnath Bharti, for failing to appear in her criminal defamation case. It had noted that neither Mitra nor her counsel appeared for the scheduled hearing, not even via video conferencing.“None is present on behalf of the complainant side, and even none appeared on behalf of the complainant side through video-conferencing (VC),” the ACMM had observed.

The Court had further noted that the present date was fixed in consultation with both sides at the previous hearing. “In view of non-appearance, a cost of Rs. 5,000 is imposed on the complainant (Mitra) to be deposited with the Central Delhi Court Bar Association,” the Court ordered. The Court had granted Mitra a final opportunity to file her reply and advance arguments, and listed the matter for August 2.

Mitra’s complaint accuses Sitharaman of making "defamatory, false, and malicious statements" during a press conference on May 17, 2024, allegedly targeting her and her husband for political gains in the run-up to the Lok Sabha elections.

The complaint alleges that Sitharaman’s comments were aimed at damaging Bharti’s electoral prospects and selectively mentioned their past matrimonial discord while omitting the fact that the couple had reconciled and were living together.

It is to be noted that on June 26, Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman had objected to Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader Somnath Bharti representing his wife, Lipika Mitra, in the case filed against her, citing a “clear conflict of interest.”

On June 12, the Delhi Court had fixed June 26, 2025, for consideration of a criminal defamation complaint lodged by Mitra.