Read Time: 05 minutes

Synopsis

The Delhi High Court has reserved its verdict in the defamation suit filed by Trinamool Congress (TMC) leader Mahua Moitra against Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) MP Nishikant Dubey and Advocate Jai Anant Dehadrai.

Moitra sought interim relief against allegations that she accepted bribes from businessman Darshan Hiranandani to pose questions in parliament.

Justice Sachin Datta, presiding over the case, inquired about any quid pro quo between Moitra and businessman Hiranandani.

The court was addressing the defamation suit brought forth by Moitra against Dubey and Dehadrai.

Dehadrai and Dubey alleged that Moitra exchanged questions in parliament for favors and expensive gifts after sharing her parliament account login credentials with Hiranandani. The Lok Sabha Ethics Committee recommended Moitra's removal from the lower house based on these claims, resulting in her expulsion from parliament on December 8.

During the hearing, Senior Advocate Sanjoy Ghosh, representing Dehadrai, and Advocate Abhimanyu Bhandari, representing Dubey, argued that there was indeed a quid pro quo. They claimed that Moitra received gifts and benefits from Hiranandani for posing questions that favored his business interests. The defense also referenced the Ethics Committee's report, asserting that it supported the existence of quid pro quo, leading to Moitra's expulsion.

Justice Datta requested the defendants to submit the relevant extract of the Ethics Committee report.

In response, Moitra's counsel, Advocate Samudra Sarangi, challenged the allegations, contending that the gifts received were due to Moitra and Hiranandani's friendship and were not exchanged for parliamentary questions. Sarangi urged the court to restrain Dubey and Dehadrai from making defamatory statements, emphasizing that the Ethics Committee's report cannot be relied upon as it followed the initial allegations.

Ghosh argued that a significant number of Moitra's questions were related to Hiranandani's business interests, presenting documentary evidence that Moitra's credentials were logged in from Kolkata, Delhi, and New Jersey on the same day.

Ghosh asserted, "The point, as of today, is that they (Moitra) have not been able to show that whatever I have said is substantially not true... A public person must have thicker skin. If public good is there in exposing something, then injunction should not be granted. Standard in that case is much higher."

After considering the arguments from all parties, the Court reserved its verdict on Moitra's plea for interim relief, seeking an injunction against Dubey and Dehadrai from making defamatory statements.

Case Title: Mahua Moitra v. Nishikant Dubey and Ors.