The Delhi High Court has recently reserved its verdict on a plea by Trinamool Congress leader Mahua Moitra, who is seeking interim relief in a defamation case against BJP MP Nishikant Dubey and advocate Jai Anant Dehadrai. This case has garnered significant attention, highlighting the complexities of political discourse and legal boundaries in India.
Justice Sachin Datta reserved the order on Moitra’s plea, which seeks to restrain Dubey and Dehadrai from posting any defamatory content against her. The High Court’s decision came after hearing the arguments presented by the counsel for Moitra, Dubey, and Dehadrai.
During the hearing, the counsels for Dubey and Dehadrai, Senior Advocate Sanjoy Ghose and advocate Abhimanyu Bhandari, argued that there was a quid pro quo involving Moitra receiving gifts and other benefits from businessman Darshan Hiranandani for asking questions in Parliament that favored his business interests. They referred to the report of the Ethics Committee of the Parliament, which they claimed found evidence of quid pro quo, ultimately leading to Moitra’s expulsion.
In response, Moitra’s counsel, advocate Samudra Sarangi, countered these allegations. Sarangi clarified that while Moitra had indeed received gifts from Hiranandani, it was because they were friends, and the gifts were not in exchange for asking questions in Parliament. He emphasized that the entire suggestion that Moitra’s login credentials were given in exchange for a favor was defamatory. Sarangi also pointed out that the defamatory allegations by Dehadrai and Dubey continued, and he requested the court to restrain them from making further defamatory statements.
Ghose, representing Dehadrai, argued that out of the 61 questions Moitra asked in Parliament, at least 50 were related to Hiranandani’s business interests. He also mentioned documentary evidence showing Moitra’s credentials being logged in from multiple locations on the same day. Ghose stated,
“The point, as of today, is that they (Moitra) have not been able to show that whatever I have said is substantially not true… A public person must have a thicker skin. If public good is there in exposing something then injunction should not be granted. The standard in that case is much higher.”
The case also intertwines with another legal matter involving Moitra, as the High Court observed that she had filed a petition in the Supreme Court challenging her expulsion as an MP in the ‘cash-for-query’ case. The High Court noted that there was no justification for a hearing in the High Court until the Supreme Court hears the matter on January 3.
This legal battle in the Delhi High Court underscores the ongoing tension between political figures and the legal system, particularly in cases involving allegations of defamation and misconduct. The court’s reserved verdict is eagerly awaited, as it will have significant implications for the boundaries of political speech and the legal recourse available in cases of alleged defamation.
