Conditional Apology Is No Apology: Delhi HC to Saket Gokhale in Lakshmi Puri Defamation Case

The Delhi High Court, on Friday, heard the petition filed by Saket Gokhale, challenging the order of the Single Judge directing him to furnish a public apology along with compensation to Lakshmi Puri.

During the hearing, Senior Advocate Amit Sibal, representing Gokhale, submitted that his client was willing to tender an apology. However, he requested that Gokhale be allowed to include a clarification that the appeals were pending before the High Court.

The bench observed that any apology must be unconditional, without reference to the pendency of appeals. The court also noted that a conditional apology did not amount to an apology. However, the bench refrained from passing any order at this stage and renotified the matter for further hearing on July 8, 2025.

Senior Advocate Maninder Singh, who appeared for Puri, opposed the submissions contending that Gokhale was required to offer an unconditional apology, in line with the directions of the Single Judge. He further referred to orders passed in execution and contempt proceedings before the Single Judge, which, he submitted, had not yet been complied with by Gokhale.

The single judge had directed Gokhale to pay damages of ₹50 lakh and to issue a public apology within four weeks through a national daily and his social media account (X, formerly Twitter). He had also filed an appeal against the order dated May 2, 2025, by which his application to set aside the ex parte decree was dismissed.

In the previous hearing, the court took a firm stance against Gokhale for non-compliance with the court orders dated July 1, 2024, or May 9, 2025. 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.

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, 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 Appellant: Senior Advocate Amit Sibal

For Respondent: Senior Advocate Maninder Singh with Advocates Vishal Gehrana, Palak Sharma, Shreyansh Rathi, and Rohit Kumar from Karanjawala & Co.

Case Title: Lakshmi Murdeshwar Puri v Saket Gokhale (CONT.CAS(C) 2029/2024)