Lawyer Jai Anant Dehadrai has moved a plea before the Delhi High Court challenging a trial court order that restrains him from publicising an ongoing custody battle with Member of Parliament (MP) Mahua Moitra over pet rottweiler dog named Henry [Jai Anant Dehadrai v. Mahua Moitra].
Justice Manoj Jain on Wednesday sought Moitra's response to Dehadrai's plea.
The judge today asked why the parties could not settle the dog custody dispute out of court.
"Why don't you sit together and sort it out? What relief is she seeking in the suit?" Justice Jain asked.
Representing Dehadrai, Senior Advocate Sanjay Ghose argued that the suit filed by Moitra seeks shared custody of the dog.
He added that Dehadrai is aggrieved by the trial court's March 2025 decision to restrict the parties from talking about the case. The ex-parte order was passed by a Saket Court in March 2025 on a suit filed by Moitra for the shared custody of Henry.
Dehadrai has contended that this order violates his freedom of speech.
By the March order, the trial court directed both parties to the suit (Moitra and Dehadrai) "to ensure that the present proceedings shall not be publicized in any manner."
Dehadrai has argued that by such a "sweeping gag order", he has been restrained from being able to disclose the existence of Moitra's suit to anyone in the public domain.
Dehadrai added that he had earlier posted a tweet on ‘X’ regarding the case without mentioning any case details.
However, the trial court found the post to be in violation of its March order and passed an ex parte interim injunction order restraining him from publishing any remark. Dehdrai said that he took down the social media post under protest.
In his plea before the High Court, Dehadrai said that the trial court had earlier orally told him to withdraw his application, opining that no "ad-interim injunction" was passed and that an appeal was a more appropriate remedy.
This prompted Dehadrai to file his appeal before the High Court instead.
Dehadrai's counsel Ghose today relied on the Delhi High Court's judgment in Ajay Kumar vs Union of India to argue against the imposition of such a gag order.
"If you are covered by this judgment, that gag order should not have been passed. Then why did you withdraw (your) application (filed earlier before the trial court against its March 2025 order)?" the Court asked.
Ghose maintained that his client cannot be restrained from talking about the case.
"A frivolous case is filed against me, and I can’t talk about it, I cant discuss about it, I can't write about it? Where is it necessary to the fairness of the trial? She is an MP. Can an MP claim a higher right over a normal plaintiff? And say any case I file will be gagged?" argued Ghose.
The High Court eventually decided to hear the matter further on December 22. It noted that Moitra had not appeared for the hearing today despite being served advance notice. Therefore, the Court issued notice to her and sought her response.
The Court also recorded Ghose's submission that there was no privacy angle involved in the matter to issue a gag order.
Dehadrai's petition was drafted by advocate Gaurav Sarkar.