NEW DELHI | The Rouse Avenue Special MP / MLA Court has declined to grant relief to Delhi Minister Parvesh Verma in his defamation complaint against senior AAP leader and Delhi State President Saurabh Bharadwaj, making strong observations about the the BJP minister’s conduct and finding that he had not approached the Court with clean hands. The Court observed that Bharadwaj’s tweets and videos concerning the trustees of SS Mota Singh School did not amount to defamation.

In its order, the Court underscored that litigants seeking judicial relief must disclose material facts fully and fairly, emphasising that the judicial process cannot be misused through frivolous or misconceived petitions.

The Court observed: “A litigant (Parvesh Verma) who attempts to pollute the stream of justice or who touches the pure foundation of justice with tainted hands is not entitled to any relief. No litigant should be permitted to misuse the judicial process by filing frivolous petitions.”

Court Finds Contradictions In Parvesh Verma’s Statements

The Court’s observations on the issue of clean hands stemmed from social media posts admitted by the complainant to have been published from his own account. These included posts expressing gratitude to Amarjit Singh Baboo for organising a medical camp in memory of Parvesh Verma’s late father and wishing him on his birthday.

The Court noted that these posts indicated that Parvesh Verma had known Amarjit Singh Baboo since his college days. It found this association inconsistent with Parvesh Verma’s statement during his examination on July 4, 2026, that he was not associated with Amarjit Singh Baboo in any manner.

Rejecting the argument that a public figure’s photographs with numerous people did not establish an association with them, the Court observed that the birthday greeting and the stated acquaintance since college could not be explained away on that basis.

The Court further clarified that a community of interest was not the sole criterion for determining an association, noting that a companion, friend or known person could also be considered an associate in common parlance.

Court Stresses Full And Fair Disclosure Of Facts

The Court held that individuals approaching it for relief were obligated to present their cases fully and fairly. It observed that when a litigant breached this obligation, the Court’s discretion could not be exercised in that litigant’s favour.

Emphasising the importance of transparency in litigation, the Court stated that easy access to justice could not be treated as a licence to file misconceived and frivolous petitions. It also held that the suppression of material facts was impermissible, whether by a litigant or as a technique of advocacy.

The Court observed: “It is not just the clean hands, but also clean mind, clean heart and clean objective that are the fundamental of judicious litigation.”

Concluding its findings on this issue, the Court held that the complainant did not deserve relief on this ground as well.