Will allow Mahua Moitra to defend herself in public if Jai Dehadrai keeps making allegations publicly: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court on Monday expressed displeasure over Advocate Jai Anant Dehadrai addressing the media after his defamation case against Trinamool Congress (TMC) leader Mahua Moitra was heard by the High Court, which issued summons to her..Justice Prateek Jalan remarked that the Court will watch the video of Dehadrai's address to the media and then decide on his conduct.The Court said that just because there is no injunction against Dehadrai, he cannot keep making allegations against Moitra even though his suit is pending. If this continues, then Moitra has a right to defend herself, the Bench said."Did you make any statement on that day (when the suit was heard and summons issued to Moitra)? Has he [Dehadrai] made some statement? I will watch the video myself…If you are going to use the fact that you don’t have an injunction against you and keep making allegations then she [Moitra] has to defend herself…I will hold his mouth. I will record that if he is going to continue to make the statements in public domain then I will give her the liberty to defend herself,” the Bench remarked..Advocate Raghav Awasthi and Mukesh Sharma appeared for Dehadrai and stated that they will advise their client to not make any statement on this issue to the media. .Justice Jalan was hearing the defamation suit filed by Dehadrai against Moitra. The Court had issued summons and notices on the suit on March 20.Moitra’s counsel Samudra Sarangi alleged that after the matter was heard by the Court, Dehadrai spoke to the media. .The Court remarked that both Moitra and Dehadrai have brought the public discourse to a fairly low level.“The allegations which are made against you do not impute any stand one way or the other as to the correctness of the allegation which you made against her. Even without those words [calling Dehadrai jilted lover, lunatic etc], she could have taken whatever defence she could. As I see it at this stage, she would have to defend herself in the public domain if your allegations are in the public domain. It would perhaps be a different thing if your allegations were made only to the statutory authorities."It noted that the correctness of the allegations made by Dehadrai would have to be determined at trial.Justice Jalan then said that the Parliamentary Ethics Committee report against Moitra is not binding on the Court.“The Ethics Committee is not a judicial proceeding. The correctness of the Ethics Committee is not binding on this Court. It is for the Court to decide whether the allegations are true or not. She has taken the defence of justification,” the Bench said. The Bench further remarked that as far as Moitra’s statements that Dehadrai’s actions are motivated are concerned, it is her perception and it is difficult to show any proof for that. “It is her perception that you are motivated. What proof would she be able to give or would you be able to give one way or the other?” .Awasthi argued that the allegations made by Dehadrai were not meant for the press, but were meant as a service to the nation. He referred to the various interviews given by Moitra and stressed that she used derogatory words against him and alleged that he was acting on the instance of a political party (BJP).He further argued that there is a huge power difference between Dehadrai and Moitra, as the latter was a Member of Parliament and politician with a huge following.“I am a private citizen. She [Moitra] has millions of followers on X [Twitter] the power differential is much higher,” Awasthi said..The Court also warned Moitra that she cannot make palpably false statements against Dehadrai or call him ‘lunatic’. Justice Jalan said that he will have no hesitation in passing an injunction order with respect to such statements.You cannot call someone a lunatic, that is ex facie defamatory, the Bench remarked.“Your client (Moitra) has to be careful or I will injunct her. If you continue to make objectively untrue statements against a person… I have no intention to injunct her beyond what is necessary. But to my mind, there is some element of palpably false statements which are being made… If you want to take defence of justification, you may do so, but if it is found to be false then you will be liable to pay damages. That part is absolutely clear,” the Bench said.It added,“I thought that a person of her status and stature would use this opportunity to reconcile to a slightly more temperate and moderate method oof communication.”.Meanwhile, Sarangi argued that Moitra is taking the defence of justification and fair comment with respect to the allegations she made against Dehadrai.Sarangi sought some time to file written statements and documents in the case to demonstrate the prima facie validity of Moitra's defence..The Court, therefore, adjourned the case to April 25..Dehadrai, who was previously in a relationship with Moitra, has argued that she made several defamatory allegations against him and gave interviews to the media alleging that he is “jobless” and “jilted”.He has, therefore, sought directions to restrain Moitra from making the defamatory allegations against him.The ₹2 crore defamation suit has also sought orders against media organisations CNN News 18, India Today, Gulf News, The Guardian and The Telegraph to take down the defamatory content against him and not to publish such content against him.Similar directions have also been sought against X (earlier Twitter) and Google..Dehadrai had earlier alleged that Moitra accepted bribes from businessman Darshan Hiranandani for asking questions in Parliament. Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) MP Nishikant Dubey filed the complaint before the Lok Sabha Speaker.Moitra subsequently sued Dehadrai and Dubey for defamation. However, the TMC leader’s plea for interim injunction was rejected by the High Court.It held that the allegations that Moitra shared her parliamentary login credential with Darshan Hiranandani and received gifts from him were not "totally false”.