From Pet Custody to Courtroom: Jai Anant Dehadrai vs Mahua Moitra Gag Order Battle in Delhi HC

The Delhi High Court on Wednesday issued notice on a plea filed by advocate Jai Anant Dehadrai, challenging a trial court’s order that restrained him from publicly speaking about the ongoing custody battle with Trinamool Congress (TMC) MP Mahua Moitra over pet Rottweiler, Henry.

A bench of Justice Manoj Jain sought Moitra’s response after hearing Senior Advocate Sanjay Ghose, who appeared for Dehadrai. Ghose argued that the trial court’s sweeping “no-publicity” direction amounted to an infringement of his client’s fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression.

Moitra had approached the trial court earlier this year seeking joint custody of the Rottweiler, claiming ownership arising out of her past friendship with Dehadrai. The latter, however, asserts that he purchased the dog in 2021 and has termed Moitra’s plea as “bizarre.”

“On the very first hearing in March 2025, without even serving me prior notice or giving me an opportunity to be heard, the trial court went ahead and passed an ex-parte gag order restraining both parties from publicizing the case,” Dehadrai said.

The trial court order stated, “Both the parties to the suit are directed to ensure that the present proceedings shall not be publicized in any form.”

Dehadrai’s plea before the High Court contends that the order dated March 6, 2025, is “erroneous, arbitrary, and unconstitutional.” He argues that the trial court, without serving him advance notice or affording him a hearing, went ahead and passed the gag order.

The impugned order, he submits, provides no reasoning or justification for restraining media reporting and effectively imposes a form of pre-censorship, which strikes at the heart of constitutionally guaranteed freedoms.

The plea relies on precedents, including the Delhi High Court’s ruling in Ajay Kumar v. Union of India, which states: “It is well settled that gag orders should be passed only when it is necessary and to prevent substantial risk to the fairness of a trial.”

It also cites the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Wikimedia Foundation Inc. v. ANI Media Pvt. Ltd., which held that it is not for courts to direct the press to take down or refrain from reporting articles.

“Court order of not reporting proceedings in the public domain. Rather, the Respondent’s purported and misconceived claim of confidentiality is baseless and appears designed to suppress the Appellant’s Fundamental Right to Speech and Expression out of her own sense of deep shame and embarrassment,” the plea added.

The plea states that Moitra’s insistence on a complete media restraint on reporting of her civil suit stems from her desire to shield herself from the public embarrassment and shame that would inevitably follow in public discourse, social media, and the press, for filing what is described as a baseless, frivolous, and vexatious suit aimed solely at causing harassment and agony to the appellan

In view of this, Dehadrai has contended that the ex parte impugned order dated March 6, 2025, not only restricts his freedom of speech and expression as enshrined under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India, but also that of the media and the free press.

The petition on behalf of Dehadrai was prepared by advocate Gaurav Sarkar.

Case Title: Jai Anant Dehadrai vs Mahua Moitra

Hearing Date: 3 September 2025

Bench: Justice Manoj Jain