In a recent development at the Delhi High Court, Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan withdrew from representing Trinamool Congress MP Mahua Moitra in her defamation case against BJP MP Nishikant Dubey and lawyer Jai Anant Dehadrai. The withdrawal came amid allegations of a ‘conflict of interest’ involving Sankaranarayanan.
Dehadrai, representing himself, informed the court that Sankaranarayanan had contacted him the previous night, proposing that Dehadrai withdraw his CBI complaint in return for the custody of a dog named Henry. This dog has been a contentious issue between Dehadrai and Moitra, with both parties accusing each other of “stealing” the pet and lodging complaints with the Delhi Police. Dehadrai stated,
“There is something very disturbing…There is a very serious conflict of interest. He (Sankaranarayanan) had a 30-minute call with me. He asked me to withdraw the CBI complaint in exchange for the dog. He cannot appear in the matter…I have the recording.”
Justice Sachin Datta expressed his dismay at the revelation, commenting,
“I am really appalled. You are a person who is expected to maintain the highest professional standard. If you have been in contact with the Defendant No 2 (Dehadrai)…”
Sankaranarayanan clarified that he reached out to Dehadrai with Moitra’s consent and because Dehadrai had previously instructed him. However, the judge responded,
“You tried to play the role of the mediator. Are you then eligible to still appear in this matter? It’s something that you need to answer yourself. It’s your call.”
Following this, Sankaranarayanan announced his withdrawal from the case.
The core of the defamation suit revolves around Moitra’s attempt to prevent Dubey, Dehadrai, and certain media outlets from publishing or disseminating any “false defamatory content” about her on any platform. She has also demanded a public apology from both Dubey and Dehradrai in three newspapers each, spanning English, Hindi, and Bengali languages.
The conflict began when Dubey lodged a complaint with the Lok Sabha Speaker, alleging that Moitra had accepted bribes to pose questions in Parliament. Dubey attributed the origin of these allegations to a letter he received from Dehadrai. In response, Moitra dispatched a legal notice to Dubey, Dehadrai, and several media houses, refuting the claims made against her. The notice emphasized that Dubey, in pursuit of immediate political gains,
“regurgitated the false and defamatory allegations”
mentioned in the letter to the Lok Sabha Speaker.
The notice further clarified that Moitra has never accepted any form of remuneration, gift, or benefit related to her duties as an MP, including the questions she raised in Parliament. It stated,
“Noticee Nos. 1 and 2’s attempts to link the questions raised by our Client to any private persons is laughable and the alleged links themselves highlight that Noticee Nos. 1 and 2 are clutching at straws, reeks of desperation and lacks any specificity regarding evidence/material particulars.”
This unfolding legal drama underscores the intricate interplay of politics, personal disputes, and the legal system.