Delhi High Court Dismisses Defamation Case Against Senior Advocate Pinaki Misra
The Delhi High Court has dismissed a criminal defamation case against Senior Advocate and former Biju Janata Dal (BJD) Member of Parliament, Pinaki Misra. The case was based on allegations that Misra referred to a fellow lawyer as a “crook” and “blackmailer” in a media interview. The case citation is Pinaki Misra v State & Anr.
On August 25, Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma nullified a 2019 summoning order issued by a magistrate’s court. In her ruling, she stated, “Therefore, this Court is of the view that permitting the criminal proceedings to continue would not advance the cause of justice and would instead subject the petitioner to the rigours of a criminal trial in the absence of sufficient foundational material. Accordingly, this Court deems it appropriate, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to quash the impugned summoning order and the consequential proceedings arising therefrom.”
The dispute began when Advocate Siddhartha Singh lodged a complaint with the Bar Council of Delhi in August 2018, accusing Misra of professional misconduct during his representation of power distribution companies before the National Green Tribunal (NGT). Following media coverage in the Economic Times, Misra allegedly made defamatory remarks in an interview with Daily Hunt News in January 2019. Singh subsequently filed two complaints under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which deals with criminal defamation, leading to the 2019 summoning orders.
Justice Sharma highlighted that Singh was the only person who testified during the pre-summoning phase and failed to present any independent witnesses to substantiate claims that the remarks damaged his reputation. The court observed, “This Court is of the considered view that the continuation of the criminal proceedings against the petitioner would not serve the ends of justice, particularly when the respondent no. 2 [complainant advocate Siddhartha Singh], having examined himself as the sole witness, has not placed any material to prima facie demonstrate that the alleged imputation had lowered his reputation in the estimation of others as contemplated under Explanation 4 to Section 499 of IPC.”
The court further noted that the alleged defamatory remarks were based on an online news report that lacked corroboration from any associated journalists or editors. Consequently, the bench decided to quash the case.
Senior Advocate Rebecca M John, along with Advocates Anushka Baruah, Pravir Singh, and Nilanjan Dey, represented Pinaki Misra. Additional Public Prosecutor Manoj Pant appeared for the state, while Advocate Divyang Kiswan represented the complainant.
[Read Judgment]
