'Apologize or Face Civil Detention': Delhi HC To Saket Gokhale In Lakshmi Puri Defamation Case
The defamation case stemmed from allegations made by Gokhale in 2021 regarding Puri’s financial dealings, particularly in relation to her ownership of an apartment in Geneva. Puri had approached the Delhi High Court, asserting that Gokhale’s public remarks had damaged her reputation and goodwill;
The Delhi High Court, on Wednesday, took a firm stance against Trinamool Congress Spokesperson Saket Gokhale for non-compliance with the court orders dated July 1, 2024, or May 9, 2025.
The bench of Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora remarked that the actions of Gokhale seemed to challenge the authority of the court. It further noted that, despite being afforded sufficient time, he had neither paid the compensation nor published the mandated public apology. With repeated non-compliance and failure to furnish a reasonable explanation, the court found Gokhale’s conduct to be in contempt of its authority, thereby prompting the latest directive to either comply or face civil detention.
During the previous hearing, the court had denied Gokhale's request to submit the apology in a sealed envelope.
Background:
The matter arose from a defamation suit filed by Lakshmi Murdeshwar Puri, a former diplomat and senior official of the United Nations, against Saket Gokhale. The suit pertained to a series of tweets made by Gokhale in which he questioned how Puri could have purchased a house worth 1.6 million Swiss Francs in Geneva in 2006.
In her plaint, Ms. Puri alleged that the statements were “maliciously motivated, laced with canards, and entailed deliberate twisting of facts in order to cause reputational damage and irrevocable harm.” She further contended that Gokhale had manipulated financial data by selectively quoting from a 2018 affidavit filed by her husband, then a public servant, during his Rajya Sabha nomination process. According to her, this was done in a mala fide and defamatory manner.
On July 8, 2021, Justice C. Harishankar had directed Gokhale to take down the tweets in question.
Despite indicating a willingness to amicably settle the matter during later proceedings, Gokhale’s proposal was declined by Puri’s counsel, who maintained that the defamatory statements were baseless and had caused unjustified harm to her reputation.
For Plaintiff: Senior Advocate Maninder Singh with Advocates Meghna Mishra, Palak Sharma, Shreyansh Rathi and Rohit Kumar and Karanjawala & Co
For Respondent: Advocate Amarjit Singh Bedi, Naman Joshi, and Harsha Vinoy
Case Title: Lakshmi Murdeshwar Puri v Saket Gokhale (CONT.CAS(C) 2029/2024)