A Delhi court on Thursday rejected Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader Satyendar Jain's plea challenging the trial court order refusing to take cognisance of his defamation case against BJP MP Bansuri Swaraj [Satyendar Kumar Jain v. Bansuri Swaraj]..Special Judge (MP/MLA cases) Jitendera Singh of the Rouse Avenue Courts dismissed Jain's revision plea against the magistrate court's order, noting that Swaraj's statement was a verbatim reiteration of the tweet published by Enforcement Directorate (ED) through its social media handle. "There is no compulsion stated/brought on record that the proposed accused had any independent means or obligation to verify the veracity of the said content, particularly as the tweet pertains to investigative findings arising from a search conducted by the ED. In the absence of any material suggesting malicious intent, it cannot be prima facie inferred that the proposed accused acted with the intention to defame or malign the Complainant (Jain)," the Court held. .Jain had sued Swaraj for defamation over an interview on the news channel Aaj Tak in which she alleged that ED recovered 1.8 kg of gold, 133 gold coins and ₹3 crore cash from his house.Swaraj's statement was based on a tweet by the ED. The tweet read:"ED has conducted searches on 6.6.2022 under PMLA, 2002 at the premises of Satyendar Kumar Jain and others. Various incriminating documents, digital records, cash amounting to Rs. 2.85 Crore and 133 gold coins weighing 1.80 kg in total from unexplained source have been seized."Jain argued that no cash or gold was recovered from his premises, and the same was evident from the ED's panchnama and yet Swaraj alleged that the material was recovered from his place. .After considering the case, Judge Singh observed that the first impression conveyed by ED's tweet was that the cash was seized from Jain's place. "Given the admitted fact that no recovery whatsoever was made from the house of the Complainant during the search, the implication conveyed through the tweet stands in stark contradiction to the factual matrix and significantly undermines the accuracy and veracity of the information presented," it said. Therefore, while rejecting Jain's plea, the Court sounded a note of caution to the ED. The judge said that ED must act impartially and any dissemination of information must be accurate, non-misleading and free from sensationalism. "The presentation of facts in a manner that is misleading, scandalous, or intended to defame or politically prejudice an individual would not only undermine the integrity of the agency but may also amount to an abuse of power and violation of the individual’s fundamental rights, including the right to reputation under Article 21 of the Constitution," the Court said. .[Read Order]
