Jai Anant Dehadrai informed the Delhi High Court that he will refrain from commenting on Pinaki Misra’s alleged conspiracy against PM Modi .Justice Jasmeet Singh urged Dehadrai not to make such allegations in light of the ongoing Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) inquiry into the matter.
NEW DELHI: On Wednesday (24th April): Advocate Jai Anant Dehadrai provided an undertaking that he would refrain from making any public statements accusing Biju Janata Dal (BJD) Member of Parliament Pinaki Mishra of participating in a conspiracy against Prime Minister Narendra Modi in Delhi High Court. Justice Jasmeet Singh urged Dehadrai not to make such allegations in light of the ongoing Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) inquiry into the matter.
The Court emphasized the need for responsible and substantial grounds before accusing someone of conspiring against the Prime Minister, stating that it is a serious offense under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and amounts to treason.
The Court noted,
“Mr [Raghav] Awasthi for and on behalf of D1 [Dehadrai] assures the Court that no allegation of plaintiff [Misra] being involved in criminal conspiracy against the PM will be made in view of the complaint pending before the CBI.”
Background:
Pinaki Mishra, a BJD MP from Odisha’s Puri constituency, filed a defamation suit against Jai Anant Dehadrai, alleging that Dehadrai had been accusing him of involvement in a conspiracy against Prime Minister Narendra Modi. Mishra’s connections with Trinamool Congress leader Mahua Moitra, who had previously been in a relationship with Dehadrai. Mishra denied the allegations and asserted that his party was aligned with the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and the Prime Minister.
READ ALSO: Cash-For-Query Case | CBI Summons Mohua Moitra’s Ex-Partner Advocate Jai Anant Dehadrai
When the hearing resumed after lunch, Dehadrai submitted a statement to the CBI in a sealed cover.
“In response to media inquiries regarding the role of Pinaki Misra, I provided information about Mr. Misra,” Dehadrai’s counsel, Raghav Awasthi, stated, noting that the Lokpal had instructed the CBI to investigate all aspects of the case.
At this juncture, the Court advised Dehadrai to refrain from making such statements until the investigation is concluded.
“In that case, please wait. It is crucial to understand that such statements can have significant ramifications for the public, implying a conspiracy against the highest office of the country,” Justice Singh remarked.
However, the Court advised Dehadrai to await the completion of the CBI investigation before making any further statements, emphasizing the potential repercussions of accusing the highest office of the country of a conspiracy. Following the Court’s inclination to issue an injunction against Dehadrai, he personally undertook not to make any statements on the alleged conspiracy.
When the Court indicated its inclination to prohibit him from making any statements regarding the alleged conspiracy against the Prime Minister, Dehadrai informed the Court that he would personally commit to refraining from doing so.
“I give my word that I won’t say anything. My lord may choose not to document it,” he stated.
However, the Court insisted on recording the statement.
“The Court places immense trust in members of the bar, but the Supreme Court has addressed this issue, stating that there should be no informal agreements between counsel. I will record that you will abstain from commenting on the conspiracy,” Justice Singh affirmed.
The lawsuit asserts that following the separation of Dehadrai and Moitra, Dehadrai levied several accusations of bribery and corruption against Moitra. Additionally, he referred to Misra as the “MP from Orissa,” purportedly a “close associate of Smt Mahua Moitra.”
“Subsequently, in November 2023, Defendant No. 1 (Dehadrai) persistently made a series of allegations not only against Ms. Moitra but also individuals with whom she had personal relationships, including the Plaintiff,” the suit outlines.
Although Dehadrai requested that his undertaking not be recorded, the Court insisted on documenting it, highlighting the issue of mutual understanding between counsels and the importance of transparency. The Court expressed trust in the legal profession but cited the Supreme Court’s stance on the matter, emphasizing the need to avoid any understanding between counsels. Consequently, the Court recorded Dehadrai’s statement, which bound him not to make any further remarks regarding the conspiracy against the Prime Minister.
