Today, On 3rd September, Lawyer Jai Dehadrai has approached the Delhi High Court challenging a gag order in the ongoing dispute with MP Mahua Moitra over their rottweiler, Henry, arguing the public has the right to know.
Lawyer Jai Anant Dehadrai filed a petition with the Delhi High Court challenging a trial court ruling that prohibits him from discussing an ongoing custody battle with Member of Parliament Mahua Moitra over their pet rottweiler, Henry.
Justice Manoj Jain, presiding over the case, has requested Moitra’s response to Dehadrai’s plea.
During Wednesday’s hearing, Justice Jain inquired why the parties could not resolve the dog custody issue amicably outside of court.
He asked,
“Why don’t you sit together and sort it out? What relief is she seeking in the suit?”
Senior Advocate Sanjay Ghose, representing Dehadrai, argued that Moitra’s lawsuit seeks shared custody of the dog. He expressed that Dehadrai is dissatisfied with the trial court’s March 2025 decision, which restricted both parties from discussing the case.
This ex parte order was issued by a Saket Court in response to Moitra’s suit for joint custody of Henry.
Dehadrai contends that this ruling infringes on his freedom of speech. The trial court’s order instructed both parties to “ensure that the present proceedings shall not be publicized in any manner.”
Dehadrai claimed that the “sweeping gag order” prevents him from disclosing the existence of Moitra’s lawsuit to the public.
He noted that he had previously tweeted about the case without revealing any specific details, but the trial court deemed this post a violation of its March order and subsequently issued an ex parte interim injunction against him. Dehadrai stated that he removed the social media post under protest.
In his petition to the High Court, Dehadrai mentioned that the trial court had informally advised him to withdraw his application, suggesting that no “ad-interim injunction” was issued and that an appeal would be the more suitable course of action.
This led him to file his appeal in the High Court instead.
Ghose referred to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Ajay Kumar vs. Union of India to counter the imposition of such a gag order.
The Court inquired,
“If you are covered by this judgment, that gag order should not have been passed. Then why did you withdraw (your) application (filed earlier before the trial court against its March 2025 order)?”
Ghose maintained that his client should not be barred from discussing the case.
He argued,
“A frivolous case is filed against me, and I can’t talk about it, I can’t discuss about it, I can’t write about it? Where is it necessary to the fairness of the trial? She is an MP. Can an MP claim a higher right over a normal plaintiff? And say any case I file will be gagged?”
The High Court has scheduled further hearings on December 22, noting that Moitra did not appear for today’s session despite having received advance notice.
The Court issued a notice to her, requesting her response. It also acknowledged Ghose’s argument that there is no privacy concern that justifies a gag order in this case.
Dehadrai’s petition was prepared by advocate Gaurav Sarkar.
Case Title: Onkar Infotech v. Delhi International Airport Limited
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
