Trinamool Congress (TMC) MP Mahua Moitra has made a significant revision to her defamation plea in the Delhi High Court. On Tuesday, she sought to exclude several media houses, initially named in her plea against the circulation of what she claims to be false and defamatory content about her. This decision was conveyed to Justice Sachin Datta by Moitra’s counsel. The counsel, while emphasizing that no interim relief was being sought at this stage, informed the court that the lawsuit would now be focused solely on two defendants: BJP MP Nishikant Dubey and advocate Jai Anant Dehadrai.
Also read- Delhi High Court Upholds Individual’s Indelible Right To Marry By Choice (lawchakra.in)
At the heart of this controversy are allegations that Moitra accepted bribes from businessman Darshan Hiranandani to pose specific questions in Parliament, particularly those targeting the Adani Group. These claims were brought to the forefront by Dubey, who based his accusations on a letter from Dehadrai. The advocate asserted that he had “irrefutable evidence” that Moitra took bribes from Hiranandani. Acting on this, Dubey approached Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla, urging him to set up an inquiry committee to probe the charges against Moitra. Dubey stated,
“50 of the 61 questions she asked in the Lok Sabha till recently were focused on the Adani Group.”
In her defense, Moitra has vehemently denied these allegations. In her plea to the high court, she stated that the allegations
“were designed to damage her reputation.”
She further emphasized that the actions of Dubey, Dehadrai, and others have caused severe harm to her dignity, reputation, respect, and goodwill.
A statement from Hiranandani, which recently surfaced in the media, seemed to support Dehadrai’s claims. In it, Hiranandani admitted to using Moitra’s parliamentary login credentials to draft and submit questions in Parliament that targeted the Adani group. He also mentioned offering various favors to Moitra, including gifting her luxury items and aiding in the renovation of her official bungalow in Delhi.
Responding to this, Moitra released a statement questioning the legitimacy of Hiranandani’s signed affidavit, especially its lack of an official letterhead. She further alleged that the affidavit might have been drafted by
“some half-wit in the PMO who doubles up as a creative writer in the BJP’s IT cell. It sings paeans to Modi and Gautam Adani while linking in every opponent of theirs to me and my alleged corruption.”
Moitra’s plea in the High Court seeks not only an injunction against Dubey and Dehadrai but also damages. She has provisionally valued the damages at Rs 2 crore. Additionally, she has demanded that the two defendants publish a retraction and apology in various newspapers for their
“false and defamatory statements/allegations”
against her. The case is set for a hearing in December.
