Delhi court dismisses BJP MP's defamation complaint against party MLA

A Delhi court on Wednesday dismissed a criminal defamation complaint filed by a Derjeeling BJP MP against a party MLA saying the latter had expressed his grievance which wasn't defamation else the right to freedom of speech and expression would be meaningless.

Additional chief judicial (ACJM) Neha Mittal dismissed the complaint filed by Raju Bista while refusing to take cognisance of the matter against Bishnu Prasad Sharma.

"The proposed accused has expressed his grievance that no actions were taken by the complainant on the issues raised by him. Such an expression also cannot amount to the offence of defamation, else the right of freedom of speech and expression would become meaningless. The statements made by the proposed accused were pertaining to the conduct of the complainant relevant to the discharge of official functions, he being a public figure and hence, the same cannot amount to defamation," the judge said.

Sharma, the complainant alleged, harmed his reputation by making "unfounded and defamatory" remarks at a press conference in April, 2024.

Bista claimed defamation for being shown to be involved in the alleged Jal Jeevan Mission scam.

The judge observed no allegations or imputations of corruption were made against the complainant but a demand was made from him for conducting an inquiry into the issues raised by the proposed accused.

"A demand for inquiry into purported instances of corruption cannot make one liable for the offence of defamation, at least not without holding any inquiry into the same and coming to the conclusion that the allegations were unfounded and baseless," the order said.

The court further noted only because questions were addressed to the complainant, it couldn't be implied that there was an intention to defame him.

The judge observed it couldn't forgotten that the complainant was an MP and questions were bound to be put to him.

The proposed accused was only raising questions on why all the work orders were assigned to only one company, the order added.

"The freedom to raise such questions is the hallmark of democracy and it cannot be denied under the blanket of offence of defamation," the judge said.

It was not clear from the entire complaint, the judge said, on what basis the complainant had claimed his reputation was lowered in the society, which was one of the essential ingredients for defamation.

"Essentially, damage to reputation is in the eyes of the other. However, no such 'other' has been mentioned in the entire complaint. In the absence of any averment regarding the lowering of the complainant's reputation in the estimation of someone else, the offence of defamation cannot be made out," the court added.