Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman Faces High-Profile Legal Challenge Amid Rising Political Tensions

Defamation Battle: Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman Faces High-Profile Legal Challenge Amid Rising Political Tensions

New Delhi: As India heads deeper into an era of intense political scrutiny and rising court cases in 2025, one legal battle has grabbed nationwide attention. The case involves none other than the Union Finance Minister, Nirmala Sitharaman, who stands accused in a high-profile criminal defamation suit filed by Lipika Mitra — wife of Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader Somnath Bharti.

This controversy, rooted in the politically charged 2024 Lok Sabha elections, reflects how personal lives and political rivalries have intertwined, pushing legal boundaries into the spotlight.

The Complaint: Allegations Against Sitharaman

Lipika Mitra alleges that during the 2024 general election campaign, Sitharaman made defamatory statements about her and her husband during a press conference on May 17, 2024, which were widely broadcast by major news networks, including Republic TV and NDTV.

According to the complaint, these remarks implied a reconciliation in Mitra and Bharti’s previously strained marital relationship, allegedly to benefit the BJP candidate and harm Bharti’s image and election campaign in the New Delhi constituency, where he was contesting as part of the INDIA alliance.

Mitra claims the statements were made “solely with the intent to cause harm to the complainant and her husband for political gains to BJP”, describing them as false, defamatory, and damaging to the couple’s personal and political reputation.

She argues that these remarks inflicted mental agony not just on her and Bharti but also on their children, reigniting old personal issues that the couple had resolved.

Court Proceedings and Latest Developments

The matter is currently being heard at the Rouse Avenue Court in Delhi, presided over by Judge Paras Dalal. During the latest hearing, an interesting twist emerged: no representative appeared on behalf of the complainant — neither physically nor via video conference.

Taking note of the repeated non-appearance, the court imposed a ₹5,000 cost on the complainant, directing the amount to be deposited with the Central Delhi Court Bar Association. Judge Dalal termed this the complainant’s “last opportunity” to file a response and present arguments, setting the next hearing date for August 2, 2025.

The judge’s order noted:

“As per the last order, the date and time were fixed for the convenience of both sides. Still, none appeared on behalf of the complainant. In view of non-appearance, cost of ₹5,000 is imposed.”

Failure to appear in the next hearing could lead to the dismissal of the complaint.

Defence Strategy: Conflict of Interest Argument

Representing Sitharaman, senior advocates Zoheb Hussain, Sanjeev Menon, Pranjal Tripathi, and Ilma Khan argued that Somnath Bharti cannot appear on behalf of his wife due to a conflict of interest, given his role as a political opponent in the elections.

Sitharaman’s legal team even suggested that if Bharti does not withdraw his vakalatnama (authorization), the matter should be referred to the Bar Council of India for disciplinary proceedings.

Political Overtones: Not the First Legal Trouble

This case adds another layer to the political and legal challenges faced by the Finance Minister in recent years. Prior to this defamation suit, Sitharaman was named in an FIR related to the Electoral Bonds controversy in Bengaluru.

The FIR, filed at Tilak Nagar Police Station on the court’s order, alleged extortion and criminal conspiracy against senior BJP leaders, including party president J.P. Nadda, former Karnataka BJP chief Nalin Kumar Kateel, and current state chief B.Y. Vijayendra.

The complaint accused corporate entities of being coerced into purchasing electoral bonds worth thousands of crores under pressure from Enforcement Directorate (ED) raids. These bonds were allegedly encashed by BJP at both national and state levels.

In December 2024, the Karnataka High Court quashed the FIR, offering significant relief to Sitharaman. However, by then, the political narrative had already taken a hit, raising questions about public trust in governance when allegations of such magnitude target a sitting Finance Minister.

Larger Questions Raised

The ongoing case also sparks broader debates:

• Should a Union Minister refer to an opponent’s private life during election campaigns?
• Can a spouse legally fight such a case on behalf of their partner who is also a political candidate?
• Do personal issues from the past become legitimate political weapons during elections?

The Road Ahead

The next hearing on August 2 will be crucial. If Mitra appears, she will need to present solid evidence and strong legal arguments proving that Sitharaman’s statements caused direct harm to her personal and political life.

Conversely, if the court finds Bharti’s representation improper, he may have to withdraw or face disciplinary action.

This case is more than a legal battle; it represents an image war where political ambition, gender dynamics, and personal relationships collide on a national stage.