Manas Dasgupta
NEW DELHI, Oct 31: The Trinamool Congress Member of Parliament Mahua Moitra has kept on her target the two main complainants seeking to delete the media houses and others as parties in the defamation case she has filed in the Delhi High Court over the charges in the “cash for query” case.
Ms Moitra on Tuesday sought to delete as parties several media houses from her petition before the Delhi High Court against circulation of alleged fake and defamatory content against her.
Counsel for Ms Moitra, while stating that he was not pressing any interim relief in the matter at this stage, told Justice Sachin Datta that the lawsuit would only continue against two defendants — BJP MP Nishikant Dubey and lawyer Jai Anant Dehadrai, the two main complaints in the cash for query case.
“Defendants 3 to 20, all of which are media houses, are being dropped, the lawyer said, adding “We are not pressing ad interim relief right now.” The dropped parties also include social media platforms X, Google and YouTube.
Mr Dubey has accused Ms Moitra of taking bribe from a businessman Darshan Hiranandani to ask questions in Parliament targeting the Adani group and the Prime Minister Narendra Modi and urged Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla to constitute an inquiry committee to look into the charges against her.
Citing a letter he received from advocate Mr Dehadrai, Mr Dubey has said the lawyer shared “irrefutable” evidence of bribes allegedly being given to the Trinamool leader by a businessman. In his letter to the Lok Sabha speaker, Mr Dubey claimed that 50 of the 61 questions she asked in the Lok Sabha till recently were focused on the Adani Group, the business conglomerate which the Trinamool MP has often accused of malpractices, more so after it was at the receiving end of a critical report by short seller Hindenburg Research.
The court permitted the TMC MP to file an amended memo of parties in view of her wish to delete all defendants except Dubey and Dehadrai, and also bring in appropriate changes in the pleadings in the matter.
Lawyer Abhimanyu Bhandari, appearing for Mr Dubey, argued that Ms Moitra has committed perjury as after denying all allegations against her, she has subsequently accepted sharing her login credentials with a businessman. The court listed the case for hearing in December.
Ms Moitra has said lawyer Dehadrai was her close friend and the recent cessation of this friendship took an acrimonious turn and he allegedly “resorted to sending vile, threatening, vulgar messages to the plaintiff and also trespassed into plaintiff’s official residence and stole some personal possessions of the plaintiff including her pet dog Henry (the same was returned later). Against such actions, the plaintiff had filed two police complaints…and the same were later withdrawn by the plaintiff on account of settlement talks.”
The Lok Sabha member from Krishnanagar in West Bengal has, in her earlier plea had sought permanent injunction against Mr Dubey, Mr Dehadrai, social media platform X, search engine Google, YouTube and 15 media houses, and to restrain them from making, publishing, circulating per se defamatory, ex facie false and malicious statements against her. She has also sought damages.
In her plea in the high court, Ms Moitra has denied the allegations and claimed they were designed to damage her reputation. She has also provisionally valued the damages at ₹ 2 crore and said the defendants be directed to pay her damages that shall be quantified at a later stage on account of the defamatory, derogatory and baseless statements made by Mr Dubey and Mr Dehadrai and published by X, Google and several media houses on their respective platforms.
Moitra has further sought a decree and an order directing “defendant no. 1 (Dubey) and 2 (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 / allegations” made by them against her.
She has said in the plea that various news reports, tweets and videos are being run or carried by 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”.
She claimed her morphed private pictures were leaked causing tremendous harm to her reputation and mental well-being and she is being harassed by the social media users. On October 17, the high court had issued summons to the defendants on the lawsuit and granted them time to file replies.
In a hearing on October 20, the high court had said it was “appalled” to know that Moitra’s counsel contacted and tried to mediate with Dehadrai against whom she has sought relief in the matter. Dehadrai, who appeared in person before the court, claimed he was contacted by senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan over phone for withdrawing his complaint to the Central Bureau of Investigation against her. Sankaranarayanan withdrew himself from the case.
