Delhi HC Declines Saket Gokhale's Plea To File Apology In Sealed Cover In Lakshmi Puri's Defamation Suit
The Delhi High Court, recently, directed Trinamool Congress (TMC) Member of Parliament Saket Gokhale to publish an apology following its July 2024 judgment in a defamation suit filed by former diplomat Lakshmi Puri. The bench also refused Gokhale's prayer to submit the apology in a sealed cover until the pendency of the appeal.
The bench of Justice Anish Dayal held, "The respondent is a Parliamentarian and a reputed member of the society. More than ten months have passed and till date there is no order that they have secured from the Court which would impede the compliance of the judgment/decree dated 01st July 2024...Accordingly, the proposal of placing the apology in a sealed cover is rejected and the apology as directed by the judgment/decree shall be published within the next two weeks, in the manner decreed".
The court had ordered Gokhale to be present in person on the next date of hearing. When the matter came up on April 15, 2025, his counsel informed the court that Gokhale was unwell and undergoing a COVID-19 test. However, no supporting medical documentation was submitted. The court then directed that the same be filed within two days.
In the latest hearing, Advocate Amarjit Singh Bedi, representing Gokhale, handed over documents showing only a test booking, with no accompanying COVID-19 test report. The court noted that despite claims of illness, no substantive evidence was provided, and expressed concern over the “callous” manner in which its directions were being treated. Advocate Amarjit Singh Bedi explained that the report was negative, and therefore not appended, a justification the court found unsatisfactory.
The underlying issue in the case pertained to the alleged wilful disobedience of a judgment dated July 1, 2024, passed by this court. The suit, initiated by Lakshmi Puri, had been decreed in her favour, directing Gokhale to pay ₹50 lakh in damages and issue a public apology.
It was an admitted position that Gokhale did not challenge the July 2024 decree until January 2025, when he applied under Order IX Rule 13 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC), seeking to recall the judgment. Alongside, he had applied for condonation of delay, explaining the reasons for filing the application beyond the prescribed time limit.
Both applications were dismissed by the court through a detailed judgment dated May 2, 2025. Senior Advocate Maninder Singh, appearing for Puri, drew the court’s attention to various portions of this judgment, which extensively discussed and analyzed the submissions made by Gokhale regarding the ex parte nature of the decree.
Advocate Bedi informed the court that Gokhale was in the process of filing an appeal and that the statutory period for doing so had not yet expired. He further submitted that Gokhale was willing to submit an apology in a sealed cover, which could be made public depending on the outcome of the appeal.
As for the damages awarded by the court, Advocate Bedi noted that they were secured through an attachment order passed on April 24, 2025. However, Senior Advocate Singh countered this claim, stating that only Gokhale’s salary was attached, and several other financial accounts were not disclosed.
Senior Advocate also pointed out that the statutory limitation period for challenging the July 2024 decree had expired in August 2024. Since the delay application was subsequently dismissed, the apology ought to be made public without further delay.
The court observed that Gokhale had neither challenged the decree in time nor complied with it, and had instead procrastinated despite being a sitting Parliamentarian and a reputed public figure. More than ten months had passed since the decree, and no judicial order had been obtained to suspend or stay its operation.
Consequently, the court rejected the proposal of submitting the apology in a sealed cover and directed that the apology, as mandated by the decree, be published within two weeks. The court further stated that other aspects concerning wilful non-compliance would be examined after hearing the parties on the next date of hearing. The matter has been listed for further consideration on September 12, 2025.
For Plaintiff: Senior Advocate Maninder Singh with Advocates Meghna Mishra, Palak Sharma, Shreyansh Rathi and Rohit Kumar
For Respondent: Advocate Amarjit Singh Bedi and Harsha Vinoy
Case Title: Lakshmi Murdeshwar Puri v Saket Gokhale (CONT.CAS(C) 2029/2024)