Satyender Jain Defamation Case: Delhi Court Rebukes Enforcement Directorate Over Misleading Tweet
The Wire Staff
Real journalism holds power accountable
Since 2015, The Wire has done just that.
But we can continue only with your support.
New Delhi: A Delhi court has dismissed a defamation case by Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader Satyender Jain against BJP member of parliament Bansuri Swaraj, while issuing a sharp rebuke to the Enforcement Directorate (ED) for a "misleading" social media post from 2022.
In an order dated July 31, 2025, Special Judge Jitendra Singh of the Rouse Avenue Court ruled Swaraj was not liable for defamation, as her statements were a "verbatim reiteration" of information published on the ED's official social media handle. The court found no evidence of malicious intent on her part.
The judge, however, directed strong criticism at the investigative agency. He observed that the ED’s post on X (formerly Twitter) on June 7, 2022, was framed in a way that “tends to create an impression” that significant recoveries of cash and gold were made directly from Satyender Jain’s residence, which was factually incorrect.
“Given the admitted fact that no recovery whatsoever was made from the house of the Complainant… the implication conveyed through the tweet stands in stark contradiction to the factual matrix,” the court stated.
Jain filed the complaint after Swaraj, in a TV interview on October 5, 2023, repeated the ED’s claim that a raid linked to him yielded cash of nearly Rs. 3 crore and 1.8 kg of gold. Jain argued the claim was false and damaged his reputation, presenting an ED document (panchnama) that showed a 'NIL' recovery from his home.
While clearing Swaraj, Judge Singh emphasised the responsibility of federal agencies. “It is incumbent upon an investigative agency such as the ED to act impartially and uphold the principles of fairness and due process,” the order read. “Any dissemination of information… must be accurate, non-misleading, and free from sensationalism.”
The court concluded that presenting facts in a misleading or scandalous manner could "undermine the integrity of the agency" and violate an individual's fundamental right to reputation. With these observations, it dismissed Jain's petition.
This article went live on August first, two thousand twenty five, at twenty-six minutes past seven in the evening.The Wire is now on WhatsApp. Follow our channel for sharp analysis and opinions on the latest developments.