Defamation case against Nirmala Sitharaman dismissed, judge wrote such a heavy word of 29 letters in the decision – ..

News India Live, Digital Desk: In a major relief to Union Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman, Delhi’s Rouse Avenue Court has outrightly rejected the criminal defamation complaint filed against her. The petition was filed by Lipika Mitra, wife of former Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) MLA Somnath Bharti. But more than this legal victory, the rare English word of 29 letters that the court has used in its decision is being discussed more. The court has termed this entire petition as ‘Floccinaucinihilipilification’. Many people are sweating after reading this heavy word and have suddenly started searching for its meaning on the internet. Let us tell you what is the meaning of this strange word and in what context the court used it.

Floccinaucinihilipilification: What is the real meaning of this confusing word?

According to reports providing information on legal matters, ‘Floccinaucinihilipilification’ simply means treating something as worthless or worthless, which actually has no value. The court said in a very strict tone that this defamation complaint is nothing but completely meaningless. What the court meant to say was that this is such a useless and meaningless issue that it has been unnecessarily drawn out of proportion. The correct pronunciation of this 29 letter word (Flok-si-naw-si-ni-hi-li-pi-li-fi-kay-shun) can be done like this.

Why was this case against Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman dismissed?

The court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (ACJM) Paras Dalal of Rouse Avenue Court made it clear that there is no solid basis for taking further legal action in this case. For this reason, the court clearly refused to take cognizance of the case and rejected the petition. In fact, Lipika Mitra had alleged in her complaint that during a press conference on May 17, 2024, Nirmala Sitharaman had made false and malicious statements with the intention of tarnishing the image of her husband Somnath Bharti and damaging his chances of victory in the elections.

Election statements are not defamation: Court’s blunt comment

The judge made it clear in his order that any political statement given in the heat of election cannot be categorized as a crime under any circumstances. When a politician makes possible facts or allegations against his political opponent, it cannot be colored as defamation. The court, after going through the transcript of the entire press conference, found that the Finance Minister’s statement was primarily a direct political attack on the Aam Aadmi Party and the opposition alliance (INDIA). The biggest thing is that in that statement the personal name of the complainant (Lipika Mitra) was not even taken, nor were any independent allegations made. The main objective of the press conference was only to tell the public and the media that the Aam Aadmi Party and the alliance are associated with those people who have faced serious allegations of misbehavior with women.