Today(on 8th April),Delhi High Court reproached Advocate Jai Anant Dehadrai for addressing the media post his defamation case hearing against Mahua Moitra, summoning her and highlighting that Dehadrai cannot make allegations without an injunction, granting Moitra the right to defend herself.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court Today(on 8th April), expressed its displeasure over Advocate Jai Anant Dehadrai addressing the media following the hearing of his defamation case against Trinamool Congress (TMC) leader Mahua Moitra. The Court issued summons to Moitra and remarked that it would review the video of Dehadrai’s media address to assess his conduct.
Justice Prateek Jalan emphasized that Dehadrai cannot continue making allegations against Moitra in the absence of an injunction, as it would grant Moitra the right to defend herself.
The Bench stated-
“If you keep making allegations without any legal restrictions, then she [Moitra] will need to defend herself… I’ll make sure you stop talking. I’ll note that if you continue making public statements, she’ll have the chance to defend herself.”
Dehadrai’s legal representatives, Advocate Raghav Awasthi and Mukesh Sharma, pledged to the Court that they would counsel their client to refrain from making any additional statements to the media regarding the matter.
ALSO READ: Delhi High Court Summons Mahua Moitra in Defamation Suit
The defamation case initiated by Dehadrai against Moitra was being adjudicated by Justice Jalan. The Court had served summons and notices on March 20. However, Moitra’s attorney, Samudra Sarangi, accused Dehadrai of speaking to the media following the court proceedings.
The Court observed that both parties had lowered the level of public discourse. It noted that the allegations made against Moitra did not confirm or disprove the accuracy of the allegations she made against Dehadrai.
Justice Jalan stated-
“Even if those specific words [referring to Dehadrai as a jilted lover, lunatic, etc.] weren’t used, she still could have presented any defense available to her. From my perspective now, if your accusations are public, she’ll likely need to address them publicly. The situation might be different if your allegations were only made to official authorities.”
The Court clarified that the report of the Parliamentary Ethics Committee against Moitra did not hold binding authority in the Court. It emphasized that the Court would determine the truthfulness of the allegations, and Moitra had chosen the defense of justification.
The Bench expressed that it would be difficult to provide evidence for Moitra’s perception that Dehadrai was motivated, stating-
“She perceives that there are motives behind your actions. What evidence could she or you present to support or challenge this perception?”
Awasthi argued that Dehadrai’s allegations were not intended for the press but rather as a service to the nation. He referred to Moitra’s interviews and claimed that she used derogatory words against him, insinuating that he was acting on behalf of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP).
Awasthi further asserted the substantial power disparity between Dehadrai and Moitra, highlighting her status as a Member of Parliament with a significant following compared to his private citizen status.
“I am an ordinary citizen, whereas she [Moitra] has millions of followers on X platform. There is a significant power imbalance between us.”
-Awasthi argued.
On the other hand, Sarangi, Moitra’s counsel, stated that Moitra was defending herself on the grounds of justification and fair comment regarding the allegations she made against Dehadrai. Sarangi requested additional time to file written statements and documents supporting Moitra’s defense.
Consequently, the Court adjourned the case until April 25.
ALSO READ: Delhi High Court Rejects Mahua Moitra’s Plea Against Alleged Defamatory Accusations
Dehadrai, formerly involved in a relationship with Moitra, alleged that she had made defamatory remarks about him in media interviews, labeling him as “jobless” and “jilted.” He petitioned for injunctions to prevent Moitra from making additional defamatory statements against him.
The defamation lawsuit, seeking Rs. 2 crore in damages, also asked for court orders directing media outlets like CNN News 18, India Today, Gulf News, The Guardian, and The Telegraph to remove any defamatory content concerning Dehadrai and refrain from publishing such material in the future.
Similar requests were also made against X (formerly Twitter) and Google. Previously, Dehadrai had accused Moitra of receiving bribes from businessman Darshan Hiranandani in exchange for asking questions in Parliament.
The complaint was lodged by Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) MP Nishikant Dubey with the Lok Sabha Speaker. In response, Moitra initiated defamation suits against both Dehadrai and Dubey. However, the High Court dismissed Moitra’s request for a temporary injunction, stating that the allegations about Moitra sharing her parliamentary login credentials with Hiranandani and accepting gifts from him were not entirely baseless.