“Floccinaucinihilipilification”: Delhi Court Dismisses Criminal Defamation Complaint Against Nirmala Sitharaman, Calls Proceedings “Worthless” [Read Order]

New Delhi: A Delhi court has declined to take cognizance of a criminal defamation complaint filed by Ms. Lipika Mitra, wife of former AAP legislator Somnath Bharti, against Union Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman, holding that the statements made by the Minister during a press conference in May 2024 amounted to nothing more than political opposition and antagonism, and disclosed no prima facie offence of criminal defamation against the complainant.

The order was passed on 1 April 2026 by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Paras Dalal of the Rouse Avenue District Courts, New Delhi, in Complaint Case No. 13 of 2025, filed under Section 223 read with Section 222(1) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita for alleged offences under Section 356 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.

The complaint arose from a press conference held by the Finance Minister on 17 May 2024 during the Lok Sabha election campaign, which was broadcast on Republic TV, NDTV, and several other media channels, and subsequently circulated on YouTube. During the press conference, the Minister had referred to Somnath Bharti, who was contesting from the New Delhi Parliamentary Constituency as the INDI Alliance candidate, alleging that he had attacked his wife with a marker pen and his pet dog while she was pregnant, and had also assaulted a journalist in 2018.

The complainant alleged that these statements, made without disclosing that the couple had since reconciled and that all criminal cases between them had been quashed by the Delhi High Court in 2019, were false, malicious, and defamatory, causing irreparable damage to her reputation and that of her family.

The court, after examining the complaint and the pre-notice evidence of eight witnesses produced by the complainant, found that the complaint suffered from a fundamental infirmity: it was built almost entirely around the reputation, political career, and alleged injury suffered by her husband, with scarcely any averment establishing the individual identity, professional standing, or independent reputation of the complainant herself. The court observed that although vehement arguments were made that a husband and wife are separate legal entities, the complaint entirely failed to reflect this, being bereft of any personal, educational, or professional background of the complainant.

On the substance of the alleged defamation, the court found that the Minister had not named or made any imputation against the complainant, Ms. Lipika Mitra, at any point during the press conference. The statements referred to her husband and were made in the context of a broader political attack on the AAP and the INDI Alliance for allegedly fielding or supporting candidates with histories of violence against women. The court held that the statements could not be seen in isolation, and that their entire context—a political press conference aimed at a rival party during a general election—had to be taken into account.

Significantly, the court also noted that the allegations reiterated by the Minister during the press conference were the complainant’s own allegations against her husband, which had been widely reported in the media, remained accessible online, and formed part of judicial records. The complainant had neither withdrawn those allegations nor clarified that they were false, and had made no effort to have such content removed from online platforms. In these circumstances, the court found it difficult to accept that the same allegations, when repeated by a third party, could constitute defamation of the complainant.

The court placed reliance on the Supreme Court’s caution in S. Khushboo v. Kanniammal, (2010) 5 SCC 600, that a higher threshold must be applied before attracting charges of criminal defamation, particularly in cases involving political speech, and that there must be a presumption in favour of the accused in such matters.

Before parting with the order, the court employed the rare and elaborate word “floccinaucinihilipilification”, meaning the act of regarding something as valueless or worthless, to characterise the complaint and the proceedings, observing that a worthless matter had been stretched far beyond its merit. Finding that no prima facie offence had been disclosed, the court declined to take cognizance.

Case Title: Lipika Mitra v. Nirmala Sitharaman, Complaint Case No. 13 of 2025, Rouse Avenue District Courts, New Delhi

[Read Order]