Read Time: 07 minutes

Synopsis

The Delhi High Court on Tuesday re-notified the defamation suit filed by TMC MP Mahua Moitra against two defendants— BJP MP Nishikant Dubey and Advocate Jai Anant Dehadrai— to December 11.

The bench of Justice Sachin Datta noted that the formal application under Section 6(17) CPC was not moved along with the amended suit. 

Directing Moitra's lawyer to file the proper application to amend the suit, the court posted the matter for hearing on December 11.

It is to be noted that on October 31, Moitra sought to delete, as parties, several media houses from her plea. The court had directed Moitra's counsel to amend the memo of parties.

Notably, on the last hearing, Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan withdrew to appear for Moitra after Dehadrai informed the court that he had been contacted by him to withdraw the complaint against the TMC MP.

Dehadrai, appearing in person had informed the court that he was contacted by the senior counsel the previous night, asking him to withdraw his complaint. He had said, "He asked me to withdraw my complaint in exchange for my dog. I have a call recording. Shankaranaryan spoke to me".

To this, the senior counsel had said, "Dehadrai had instructed me in the past. When I was asked to appear in the matter, I told my client (Mahua Moitra) to let me speak to him. She had agreed to it. That's why I approached him".

Dubey has accused Moitra of taking a bribe from a businessman to ask questions in Parliament and urged Speaker Om Birla to constitute an inquiry committee to look into the charges against her. Citing a letter he received from Advocate Dehadrai, Dubey said that the lawyer shared “irrefutable” evidence of bribes being given to the Trinamool Congress (TMC) leader by a businessman.

In his letter to the Lok Sabha speaker, Dubey claimed 50 of the 61 questions Moitra asked in the Lok Sabha till recently were focused on the Adani Group, the business conglomerate which the TMC MP has often accused of malpractices, more so after it was at the receiving end of a critical report by short-seller Hindenburg Research.

About the plea 

In her plea, Moitra has sought an order directing defendants no. 1 (Nishikant Dubey) and 2 (Jai Anant Dehadrai) to publish a retraction and an apology to the plaintiff in three English newspapers, three Hindi newspapers, and three Bengali newspapers for the false and defamatory statements and allegations” made by them against her.

Moitra said that Dehadrai was her close friend, and recently, the cessation of this friendship soon took a bitter turn, and he “resorted to sending vile, threatening, and vulgar messages to the plaintiff and also trespassed into the plaintiff’s official residence and stole some personal possessions of the plaintiff, including her pet dog, Henry [the same was returned later]”.

She has said in the plea that various news reports, tweets, and videos are being run or carried by the social media platforms and media houses on their respective platforms and channels, in which “wild, unfounded, false, baseless, and defamatory allegations leaked by Defendant nos. 1 and 2 are being further propagated and thereby cause further prejudice, damage, and injury to plaintiff’s reputation and goodwill”.

Moitra has claimed that her morphed private pictures were leaked, which has been causing tremendous harm to her reputation and mental well-being, and she is being harassed by social media users.

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