Delhi Court Urges Enforcement Directorate to Maintain Accuracy in Social Media Communications
Court's Directive on ED's Social Media Conduct
A Delhi court has emphasized the need for the Enforcement Directorate to operate with impartiality, ensuring that the information shared on its social media platforms is both accurate and devoid of sensationalism. This statement was reported by a legal news outlet on Thursday.
Special Judge Jitendera Singh, presiding over the Rouse Avenue Court, remarked that presenting information in a misleading or defamatory way could damage the credibility of the agency and negatively impact the reputation of individuals involved.
He further noted that such actions could constitute an abuse of authority and infringe upon fundamental rights.
“It is essential for an investigative body like the ED to act without bias and adhere to principles of fairness and due process,” the judge stated. “Any information shared, particularly on official social media channels, must be precise, non-deceptive, and free from sensationalism.”
This observation came as the court dismissed a defamation lawsuit filed by Aam Aadmi Party leader Satyendar Jain against Bharatiya Janata Party MP Bansuri Swaraj.
Jain's complaint stemmed from Swaraj's claims during a news channel interview, where she alleged that the Enforcement Directorate had seized 1.8 kg of gold, 133 gold coins, and Rs 3 crore in cash from his residence, as reported by the legal news outlet.
These statements were based on a social media post made by the Enforcement Directorate.
In a post on X, the agency claimed to have confiscated documents, digital records, Rs 2.85 crore in cash, and 133 gold coins weighing 1.80 kg from an “unexplained source” during searches conducted at Jain's premises and others in 2022.
Jain contested this in court, asserting that no cash or gold was found at his location. He pointed out that Swaraj's assertions contradicted the Enforcement Directorate’s own panchnama, or observation record.
On Thursday, the judge noted that the ED's post suggested that the cash had been seized from Jain's property.
While rejecting Jain’s request, the court warned the ED against disseminating misleading information.