Rouse Avenue Court Dismisses Nirmala Sitharaman’s Plea In Criminal Defamation Case

During the proceedings, Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman asked the court to prevent Somnath Bharti from acting as legal counsel for his wife, Lipika Mitra, in the criminal defamation case, arguing that calling Bharti as a witness could create a conflict of interest.

Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Paras Dalal rejected her argument, stating that Indian law treats husband and wife as separate legal entities.

Sitharaman’s counsel, Zoheb Hussain, contended that Bharti’s close connection to the case, given his public profile and relationship with Mitra, could compromise the fairness of proceedings.

Hussain further argued that allowing Bharti to act as Mitra’s lawyer could violate the professional conduct regulations established by the Bar Council of India.

Court’s Observation

The court clarified that lawyers are officers of the court first and foremost.

The court highlighted that people can address any potential professional misconduct by filing complaints with the Bar Council of India or the Delhi Bar Council.

Magistrate Dalal emphasised the clear distinction between personal relationships and professional legal duties, thereby rejecting Finance Minister Sitharaman’s plea.

Lipika Mitra filed the criminal defamation case against Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman, accusing her of making defamatory and derogatory statements in print and electronic media.

Republic TV and NDTV broadcast the remarks on 17 May, following a press conference that Nirmala Sitharaman held on YouTube.

Mitra claimed that the minister deliberately referenced past matrimonial disputes between her and Somnath Bharti, while failing to acknowledge that the couple had reconciled and were living together normally.

Mitra further alleged that Sitharaman’s statements caused irreparable mental distress to herself, her husband, and their two minor children.

Next Hearing and Public Implications

The next hearing in the case is scheduled for 1 November. Legal analysts have noted that the ruling reinforces the independence of legal representation, even in high-profile cases involving prominent political figures.

The court’s decision underscores that lawyers’ professional duties and obligations to the judicial system take precedence over perceived conflicts of interest arising from personal relationships.

This ruling has attracted public attention for highlighting the delicate balance between politics and judicial proceedings, reinforcing the principle that legal ethics and the role of counsel as an officer of the court remain paramount, irrespective of a case’s political or social sensitivity.

Also Read: CJI BR Gavai Felicitated At ITAT Symposium; Stresses On Reforms, Special Benches & Training For Judicial Excellence