Delhi HC reserves interim order in Mahua Moitra's defamation suit

NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court has reserved its order on the question of interim relief sought by Trinamool Congress' Member of Parliament (MP) Mahua Moitra in a defamation suit against Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) MP Nishikant Dubey, and Adv. Jai Anant Dehadrai (also reportedly her former boyfriend).

The case is being heard by a bench of Justice Sachin Datta. 

The suit filed by Moitra alleged false and defamatory publication against her in the ‘cash for query’ matter wherein she faces allegations of accepting bribes from businessman Darshan Hiranandani to ask questions in the Parliament, and of sharing her official login credentials to facilitate the same.

Dehadrai and Dubey had alleged that Moitra was doing this in return for favours and expensive gifts and Hiranandani.

“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 a thicker skin. If public good is there in exposing something then injunction should not be granted. (The) standard in that case is much higher,” Sr. Adv. Sanjoy Ghose for Adv. Jai Anant Dehadrai argued.

Earlier, based on these allegations, the Lok Sabha Ethics Committee had also suggested Moitra’s removal from the Lok Sabha, in respect to which her plea is due to be heard by the Supreme Court on January 4.

Responding in the affirmative to Justice Datta's question in this regard, Dehadrai’s lawyer, Sr. Adv. Sanjoy Ghose, and Dubey’s counsel Adv. Abhimanyu Bhandari submitted before the High Court that there was qui pro quo between Moitra and Hiranandani.

They informed the Court that even the Ethics Committee of the Parliament had found a quid pro quo relation between the two, which had ultimately resulted in Moitra’s expulsion. They have been directed to place the relevant extract of the said Ethics Committee report on record.

Moitra denied any quid pro quo relation while admitting that she had received gifts from Hiranandani. She stated that the same were merely on account of their friendship and for no other reason.

Moitra has also argued against any reliance on the Ethics Committee report stating that the defamatory allegations were already made by the time the report came out.

The Court, after hearing submissions from all sides, reserved its verdict on Moitra’s interim relief application.