The Rouse Avenue court in New Delhi issued a notice on Saturday to Bharatiya Janata Party MP Bansuri Swaraj following a revision petition filed by former Delhi Minister Satyender Jain. Jain had challenged the trial court’s decision, which had refused to take cognisance of his defamation complaint against Swaraj.
The case revolves around statements made by Swaraj during an interview on a TV channel about an Enforcement Directorate (ED) raid in a money laundering case.
The complaint was filed after Swaraj allegedly made defamatory remarks about Jain in the interview aired on October 5, 2023. Jain claimed that Swaraj falsely stated that ₹3 crores, 1.8 kg of gold, and 133 gold coins were recovered from his house during the ED raid. He also accused her of labelling him as "corrupt" and "fraud".
Jain alleged that the statements were made with the intent to damage his reputation.
On Saturday, Special Judge Jitendra Singh issued a notice to Swaraj, asking her to respond to the revision petition. The court scheduled the matter for hearing on April 15.
The notice came after submissions by Jain’s lawyers, Rajat Bhardwaj and Kaustubh Khanna. The counsel also informed the court that they were dropping the news channel as a respondent in the case. The court’s decision follows Jain’s claims that Swaraj’s statements were politically motivated and part of a smear campaign against him.
Earlier, on February 20, 2025, the trial court had declined to take cognisance of Jain’s complaint. He had alleged that Swaraj’s comments during the interview were defamatory and politically charged. Jain’s complaint centred around the ED raid and the accusations made by Swaraj about his alleged involvement in financial wrongdoing. Jain had filed the complaint in response to what he believed were false and malicious claims made by Swaraj.
The former Delhi Minister argued that the statements made by Swaraj had severely impacted his personal and professional life. He claimed that the remarks tarnished his reputation as a public figure, affecting his image as a husband, father, and political leader. Jain contended that the defamatory statements caused immeasurable harm to his character and credibility, not just in his political role but also in his personal capacity.
In the previous hearings, Jain’s legal team had pointed out that Swaraj’s remarks were designed to target him politically. They argued that the comments were made with the aim of gaining electoral leverage and discrediting him in the eyes of the public. Jain’s lawyers also argued that the statements were based on material that was available in the public domain, and they contested Swaraj’s claims in court.
Follow us
