In a closely watched case involving allegations of defamation during an election campaign, a Delhi court has declined to proceed against Union Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman. The court found no prima facie offence made out in the complaint filed by Lipika Mitra, wife of former MLA Somnath Bharti.
Background of the Case
The complaint stemmed from remarks made by the Finance Minister during a press conference in May 2024, amid the Lok Sabha election campaign.
Lipika Mitra alleged that statements referring to past matrimonial disputes between her and her husband were false, malicious, and intended to damage their reputation. She argued that the remarks, widely broadcast on television and social media, caused mental distress and harmed her family’s public image.
Read also:- Allahabad High Court Flags ‘Honey Trap’ Racket, Orders Police Vigil Across Meerut Zone
The complaint was filed under provisions of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), alleging criminal defamation under Section 356 of the Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita (BNS).
After examining the complaint, witness statements, and material on record, the court took a critical view of the allegations.
The judge noted that the press conference was political in nature and aimed at criticizing opposition parties during an election. Importantly, the court found that the statements referred to past allegations involving Somnath Bharti, not the complainant herself.
“The statements cannot be read in isolation… they form part of political discourse between rival parties,” the court observed.
Read also:- Supreme Court Cancels Bail of Satinder Singh Bhasin in Grand Venice Case
The court further highlighted that the complainant did not deny the existence of earlier disputes or allegations, which had already been part of public record and judicial proceedings.
It also pointed out that for criminal defamation, three elements must exist imputation, publication, and intent to harm reputation and none were sufficiently established in this case.
The court emphasized that:
- No direct imputation was made against Lipika Mitra
- The remarks were based on previously reported allegations
- Political criticism carries a higher threshold before it can be treated as defamation
Referring to settled law, the court reiterated that freedom of speech in political contexts must be carefully balanced and cannot be restricted without clear grounds.
Declining to take cognizance, the court concluded:
“There is no imputation against the complainant… the material placed does not disclose any prima facie offence.”
The complaint was dismissed at the threshold, and the matter was ordered to be consigned to the record room.
Case Details
Case Title: Lipika Mitra v. Nirmala Sitharaman
Case Number: Complaint Case No. 13/2025
Judge: Paras Dalal (ACJM-01, Rouse Avenue Courts, Delhi)
Decision Date: 01 April 2026
