New Delhi: Trinamool Congress MP Mahua Moitra on Tuesday told the Delhi High Court that she did not wish to press the interim application against various media outlets and social media platforms at this point in her defamation suit against BJP MP Nishikant Dubey and lawyer Jai Anant Dehadrai.
Moitra had moved the high court against Dubey, Dehadrai, 15 media organisations and three social media intermediaries following what she alleged were false and defamatory accusations against her.
Justice Sachin Datta, who presided over the case, was also informed that no interim relief is being pressed in the matter on Tuesday against Dubey and Dehadrai.
During a brief hearing, Dubey’s counsel, Advocate Abhimanyu Bhandari argued that Moitra has committed perjury and that she also shared her Parliament login credentials.
Meanwhile, the court asked Moitra’s lawyer to file an amended memo of parties and re-notified the matter for hearing next on December 5.
Last time, Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan withdrew from appearing for Moitra.
Dehadrai, who had appeared in person, informed the court that Sankaranarayanan contacted him Thursday night proposing that he withdraw his CBI complaint in exchange for custody of the dog, Henry.
Henry had become a subject of dispute between Dehadrai and Moitra, with both accusing each other of “stealing” the dog, leading to complaints filed with the Delhi Police.
Dehadrai had told Justice Sachin Datta that there is something very disturbing.
“There is a very serious conflict of interest. He (Sankaranarayanan) had a 30-minute call with me. He asked me to withdraw the CBI complaint in exchange for the dog. He cannot appear in the matter,” he had said.
Justice had then said: “I am really appalled. You are a person who is expected to maintain the highest professional standard.”
Sankaranarayanan had clarified that he had contacted Dehadrai with the consent of Moitra, and only because Dehadrai had previously instructed him.
However, the Judge had raised concerns, saying, “You tried to play the role of the mediator. Are you then eligible to still appear in this matter?” In light of these arguments, Sankaranarayanan withdrew from the case.
The defamation suit came after Moitra issued a legal notice to Dubey, Dehadrai, and several media outlets, vehemently denying any wrongdoing.
Dubey had lodged a complaint with the Lok Sabha Speaker, claiming that Moitra had accepted bribes in exchange for raising questions in Parliament. According to Dubey, the allegations stemmed from a letter addressed to him by Dehadrai.
“By way of background, it is stated that Defendant No. 2 (Dehadrai) was a close friend of the Plaintiff and recently, the cessation of this friendship soon took an acrimonious turn. Defendant No. 2 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,” Moitra’s plea reads.
Moitra had then allegedly filed two police complaints dated March 24 and September 23 against Dehadrai and the same were later withdrawn by her on account of settlement talks.
“Despite the aforesaid, Defendant No. 2 went ahead and decided to tarnish and malign the reputation of the Plaintiff by approaching credible journalist to run damaging stories against the Plaintiff, however, none of such journalists agreed to participate in his malicious and vindictive designs,” the plea states.
Her legal notice said that Dubey, for immediate political gains, regurgitated the false and defamatory allegations contained in the letter sent to the Speaker of the Lok Sabha. It further claimed that both Dubey and Dehadrai are directly responsible for tarnishing Moitra’s reputation for their own personal and political motives.
The notice went on to clarify that Moitra has never accepted any form of remuneration or gifts related to her duties as an MP, including the questions she raises in Parliament. Regarding the alleged links between the questions raised by Moitra and private individuals, the legal notice dismissed these claims as “laughable” and lacking any specificity or concrete evidence.
(IANS)
