Delhi HC Disposes Plea Of Mahua Moitra Against Nishikant Dubey and Jai Anant Dehadrai
The Delhi High Court, on Friday, disposed of the application filed by Trinamool Congress MP Mahua Moitra, seeking the removal of an allegedly defamatory social media post published on the platform ‘X’ by Advocate Jai Anant Dehadrai. The post, dated April 21, 2025, had included a screenshot of a Facebook post by BJP MP Nishikant Dubey, which Moitra claimed was defamatory and factually incorrect.
The application was first taken up on May 8, when senior counsel appearing for Dubey submitted that the post on X merely contained a screenshot of a separate post made on Dubey’s Facebook account. The counsel requested additional time to obtain instructions from Dubey. When the matter was heard again subsequently, Dubey’s counsel informed the court that the Facebook post in question had been deleted.
Appearing in person, Dehadrai also stated that since the original Facebook post had been removed, he would delete the impugned post on X the same day. Both defendants agreed that in light of these developments, the application could be disposed of.
During the hearing, Senior Advocate Abhimanyu Bhandari, appearing for Dubey, claimed that his client was provoked by a comment made by Moitra in an earlier post, in which she allegedly referred to him with the derogatory term ‘pitbull’. He requested that Moitra be directed to refrain from such references in the future.
In response, Advocate Samudra Sarangi, appearing for Moitra, clarified, on instructions from her, that the use of the term ‘pitbull’ in the specific post referenced was not intended to refer to Dubey. It was further submitted that in any of Moitra’s social media posts addressed to Dubey, she explicitly tagged him. The counsel clarified that the word ‘pitbull’, as used in the comment or elsewhere in Moitra’s posts, did not pertain to Dubey. The court recorded this statement and held Moitra bound by it.
Advocate Samudra Sarangi also argued that the primary grievance in the application was against the content of Dubey’s Facebook post, which was subsequently amplified by Dehadrai’s post on X. He emphasized that the post contained incorrect information that compelled the plaintiff to approach the court. He noted that while there may have been mutual name-calling between the parties on social media, the application did not address those issues. He added that Dubey himself had used objectionable language against Moitra in his posts.
Considering that Moitra had categorically disowned any reference to Dubey as ‘pitbull’, the court found no reason to issue directions on that matter. Additionally, in view of the fact that the original Facebook post had been deleted and Dehadrai had undertaken to remove his post from X, the court held that the relief sought in the application no longer survived.
In the previous hearing, the court had cautioned both sides against making derogatory public statements while the matter remained sub judice. The bench had also directed Dubey to “respect the court of law and the Lokpal,” emphasizing the need for restraint in public discourse during ongoing legal proceedings.
Background:
The court, in an order dated March 4, 2024, dismissed the suit of Mahua Moitra seeking an injunction against BJP MP Nishikant Dubey and Advocate Jai Anant Dehadrai against the publication of defamatory statements against her, citing a lack of evidence to substantiate a prima facie case of an interim injunction.
On April 8, 2024, the court, in Jai Dehadrai's defamation suit, opined that Mahua Moitra (Trinamool Congress leader) retains the right to defend herself in the public sphere against allegations made by Dehadrai. However, the following day, the court also cautioned Moitra from making derogatory statements on social media platforms.
The bench of Justice Prateek Jalan emphasized that calling someone a lunatic is clearly libelous and therefore, Moitra must be careful. The court further added that if Dehadrai persists with false statements, he will also face consequences.
For Petitioner: Advocates Samudra Sarangi, Saloni Jain, Panya Gupta and Akash Jaini
For Respondent: Senior Advocate Abhimanyu Bhandari with Advocates Rishi K. Awasthi, Roohe Hina Dua, Shreya Arora and Avinash Ankit
Case Title: Mahua Moitra v Nishikant Dubey and Ors. (CS(OS) 667/2023)