Dynamite News Court adjourns hearing on civil defamation suit filed by AAP's Satyender Jain
The hearing could not take place as the concerned judge, Naina Gupta, was on leave on Saturday. The matter has been listed for hearing on July 14, 2025. Read further on Dynamite News:
New Delhi: Delhi's Rohini District Court on Saturday adjourned the hearing on the civil defamation suit filed by Former Delhi Minister Satyender Jain against BJP MP Bansuri Swaraj.
The hearing could not take place as the concerned judge, Naina Gupta, was on leave on Saturday. The matter has been listed for hearing on July 14, 2025.
Earlier, the court had issued notice to Bansuri Swaraj and other respondents.
Jain has alleged that Bansuri Swaraj made 'defamatory remarks' in an interview on a tv channel in October 2023.
Senior Civil Judge Naina Gupta issued notice to Bansuri Swaraj and others on December 11, 2024, and sought a response to the suit.
Also Read |
Satyendra Jain moves court against BJP MP Bansuri Swaraj alleging Defamation
Jain has prayed for direction to the TV channel to take down the content in question and restrain her from making further statements. Jain has claimed a damage of one rupee.
A defamation suit has been filed through advocate Karan Sharma. He had also filed a criminal defamation complaint against Bansuri Swaraj in Rouse Avenue court. The same has been dismissed by the Rouse Avenue court.
AAP leader and former Delhi Minister Satyender Jain, in the defamation complaint, had alleged that Swaraj had made defamatory remarks against him during an interview on a tv channel in, 2023. This interview was watched by Millions of people.
He had claimed that Bansuri Swaraj made these remarks to defame him and gain undue political advantage.
Former Delhi Minister Jain had alleged that Bansuri Swaraj falsely stated that Rs. 3 crores were recovered from his house.
Also Read |
'Why ordinance Sir?': Arvind Kejriwal shares PM Modi's 2013 tweet amid tussle with Centre
She had also stated that 1.8 kg gold and 133 gold coins were recovered from the house of the complainant, he had claimed.
It was also stated that these statements were made in context with the raid of the Enforcement Directorate at the complaint's house. He is on bail in this case, and the same is pending before the court.
In furtherance of the "vilification campaign," she further defamed by calling him 'Corrupt' and 'Fraud'. Several false, malicious and defamatory allegations were levelled against the complainant, he alleged.
It was stated that the accused had played havoc with the reputation of the complainant, and the smear campaign had caused a cascading effect on the complainant as husband, father, brother, friend and as a common of the society, apart from scarring his otherwise unblemished political reputation.
It was said that the damage and dent caused by the "frivolous allegations levelled by the accused is immeasurable" as the complainant's character and reputation "stand assailed not only as the elected representative and mass leader but even in his personal capacity."