In a sharp rebuke to the Enforcement Directorate (ED), a Delhi court flagged the perils of misleading public communication by investigative agencies, stressing that they must “act impartially and uphold the principles of fairness and due process.” The remarks surfaced in proceedings where the court dismissed AAP leader Satyender Kumar Jain’s revision plea in his defamation battle against BJP MP Bansuri Swaraj.
The proceedings arose from a 2023 televised interview in which Swaraj alleged that ₹3 crore in cash and 1.8 kg of gold, including 133 gold coins, had been recovered from Jain’s residence during an ED raid. Satyender Kumar Jain, a three-time MLA from Delhi and former minister in the Government of the National Capital Territory of Delhi (GNCTD), contended that the statement was false and intended to tarnish his reputation, leading to the filing of a defamation complaint under Section 356 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS).
After the Trial Court refused to take cognizance of his defamation complaint, Jain challenged the order by filing a revision petition before the Rouse Avenue Court.
The case centered on an official ED tweet from June 2022, stating that searches were conducted at the premises of “Satyender Kumar Jain and others,” with cash and gold allegedly seized. The court noted that the phrasing “tends to create an impression” that the recoveries were made from Jain’s own house, even though “no recovery whatsoever was made from the house of the Complainant during the search.”
The court further observed that “The subsequent inclusion of the phrase ‘and others’ in a subtle and ambiguous manner, following the explicit naming of the Complainant, fails to clearly attribute the recoveries to ‘others’ whose residence were involved in the raid operation.”
Special Judge Jitendra Singh held that Swaraj’s statements were a verbatim reiteration of the ED’s official tweet. The court found no evidence of independent fabrication or malicious intent. It stated, “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.” The court also noted that misleading or politically prejudicial posts could amount to abuse of power and infringe an individual’s right to reputation under Article 21 of the Constitution.
The court ultimately dismissed the revision petition and, in doing so, issued a pointed admonition to the ED on the manner in which it communicates with the public. It held, “It is incumbent upon an investigative agency such as the ED to act impartially and uphold the principles of fairness and due process. Any dissemination of information, including but not limited to official social media platforms, must be accurate, non-misleading, and free from sensationalism.”
Case Title: Satyender Kumar Jain Vs. Bansuri Swaraj
Case No.: Criminal Revision Petition No. 09/2024
Coram: Justice Jitendra Singh
Picture Source :
