Delhi Court Refuses To Bar AAP Leader From Representing Wife In Defamation Case Against Nirmala Sitharaman

A Delhi Court on Wednesday refused to restrain Aam Aadmi Party leader Somnath Bharti from representing his wife in her criminal defamation case against Union Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman.

ACJM Paras Dalal of Rouse Avenue Courts rejected Sitharaman's application seeking a direction that the complainant, Lipika Mitra's main counsel- Somnath Bharti must withdraw his Vakalatnama from the matter.

Sitharaman's application stated that Somnath Bharti is the husband of the complainant and thus, is a personal as well as pecuniary beneficiary of the case. This position, as per the Union Minister, was against Rule 6 and 9 of the Bar Council Rules.

Rule 9 obliges Advocates to tefuse to represent clients who insist on unfair means.

Rejecting the plea, the Court said that although one may argue that both parties are interested in each other's rights and interests, however, the same cannot be questioned to be unethical and immoral.

“A spouse, in this backdrop, may prosecute or defend the interest of the other before the Court of law. Although one may also say that in such a case, the spouse would show keen interest to seek higher compensation or relief, however, this cannot be called illegal unless some unethical practice is employed,” the Court said.

“This Court cannot pre-suppose that only because the main counsel for the complainant is related to her by marriage, he is pecuniarily interested. Unlike Rule 1 to 8 which uses the word 'shall', Rule 9 uses the word 'should', which in form is an 'advice'. Although the powers exists with the Court to report any unethical or immoral act to the Bar Council of India. However, to pre-empt lack of objectivity in every scenario of spouse defending or prosecuting for his/her spouse would be to challenge a healthy relationship between the Bar and the Bench,” it added.

The judge said that there was no ground to determine Bharti's vakalatnama at this stage and that in event of specific violation of any Rule by any of the counsel for either party, the Court can always write to the Bar Council of India or Bar Council of Delhi for necessary information and action, if any.

“This Court finds no bar to spouse prosecuting for or defending his/ her spouse. There is no bar to even claim for maximum possible punishment or compensation, even when spouse is defending or prosecuting for his/ her spouse. In law, the husband and wife are two separate natural person and their pecuniary interests may be different,” the Court said.

Additionally, the judge also rejected Mitra's plea seeking waiver of imposition of Rs. 5,000 costs upon her for failing to appear in the matter.

The case is now fixed for pre-summoning evidence on November 1.

The complainant, Lipika Mitra, filed the criminal defamation case against Sitharaman alleging commission of offences under Section 356(1) and 356(2) of BNS, 2023 for allegedly making and publishing defamatory, derogatory and libelous remarks in print and electronic media against her.

The complaint alleges that Sitharaman has made defamatory, false, and malicious statements in a press conference published on YouTube, which was broadcasted on Republic TV and NDTV news channels on May 17.

Mitra has alleged that Sitharaman's statements were made by her during the election campaign of Loksabha, 2024, with the sole intention to tarnish her husband's reputation, and weaken his chances of winning from New Delhi Parliamentary Constituency as India Alliance Candidate.

The complaint says that the alleged statements have caused immense mental anguish to Bharti and damaged his public standing as an elected representative.

“The accused deliberately is trying to cause larger damage to the marriage which complainant and her husband have successfully saved and in turn is also causing mental agony not only to the complainant and her husband but also to their children. The accused thus attempted to, tarnish the reputation of the Complainant's husband and damage his social standing and goodwill in the society,” the complaint reads. 

Click here to read order