The Delhi High Court recently put on hold its decision regarding the temporary relief sought by TMC's Mahua Moitra in her defamation case against BJP's Nishikant Dubey and lawyer Jai Dehadrai. Moitra alleged false and defamatory accusations against her related to the cash-for-query controversy.
Justice Sachin Datta probed into any potential exchange between Moitra and businessman Darshan Hiranandani, urging clarification. Moitra, ousted as a Lok Sabha MP by the ethics panel on December 8, faced allegations of receiving cash for posing questions on behalf of Hiranandani.
Legal representatives for Dubey and Dehadrai argued a possible quid pro quo, citing para 68 of the Ethics Committee's report leading to Moitra's expulsion. The court reserved its decision on Moitra's temporary injunction plea, demanding Dubey and Dehadrai's counsels to submit the relevant section of the Ethics Committee's report.
Previously, Justice Datta permitted Moitra's counsel to amend the petition, citing "significant developments" from social media posts by Dubey and Dehadrai.
Moitra expressed a willingness to retract the interim application against media outlets and social platforms in her defamation suit for now. Her suit targets Dubey, Dehadrai, 15 media firms, and three social media intermediaries for alleged false accusations.
Dubey's counsel, Abhimanyu Bhandari, alleged Moitra of perjury and sharing her Parliament login details.
The dispute over a dog named Henry intensified between Dehadrai and Moitra, leading to complaints lodged with the Delhi Police, adding to the complexity of the case.
Moitra's legal action followed a notice to Dubey, Dehadrai, and multiple media outlets, vehemently denying any wrongdoing. Dubey, citing a letter from Dehadrai, accused Moitra of taking bribes for raising parliamentary questions.
Moitra's plea outlines Dehadrai's alleged threatening messages and theft of personal items, initiating police complaints later withdrawn due to settlement talks.
Despite this, Dehadrai purportedly attempted to malign Moitra's reputation by approaching journalists, which the plea asserts was unsuccessful.
Moitra's notice to Dubey highlighted their responsibility in tarnishing her image for personal and political gains, refuting claims of accepting any form of remuneration related to her parliamentary duties. It dismissed alleged connections between her questions and private individuals as baseless.
(With Agency Inputs)
ALSO READ | Mahua Moitra Challenges Eviction from Government Residence in Delhi High Court
