How can you vilify people like this? Delhi High Court reserves order in Rs 5 crore defamation suit by Lakshmi Puri against Saket Gokhale

The Delhi High Court on Thursday took objection to the tweets put out by activist Saket Gokhale alleging that former Assistant Secretary-General at the United Nations Lakshmi Puri had purchased certain property in Switzerland disproportionate to her income. .Justice C Hari Shankar asked Gokhale how he can vilify people, particularly since the tweets put out by him were prima facie incorrect. "How can you be vilifying people like this? Show me that before you put this on public domain, you approached the plaintiff," the Court said. .The Court eventually reserved its order in the defamation suit filed by Puri seeking damages to the tune of Rs 5 crore, besides an order to take down the tweets.The Court noted in its order that a query was put to Gokhale's counsel, Advocate Sarim Naved, as to whether his client had approached any official authority or sought clarification from Puri before putting out the tweets. Naved replied in the negative, and stated that he had tagged the Union Finance Minister in his tweets dated June 23..Puri moved the High Court through law firm Karanjawala & Co. claiming that the tweets were defamatory, malicious and based on false information. .Gokhale's tweets hinted that Puri purchased certain property in Switzerland and also made references to Puri's spouse, Union Minister Hardeep Singh Puri.The tweet said: "Modi Minister & his Switzerland house: Former IFS officer @HardeepSPuri holds 2 Union Ministries in the Modi govt. Mr. Puri's spouse Amb. Lakshmi Puri is also a former IFS officer. Now, a great mystery about them which revolves around a $2.5 million house in Switzerland.So Amb. Lakshmi Puri purchased a house worth CHF 1.6 million (Rs. 12.9 crores) in Switzerland in 2006 while she was a serving IFS officer. Of this CHF 1.6 million, she took a loan of CHF 10,60,000. Which means she made a down payment of CHF 5,40,000.".Puri had earlier sent a legal notice to Gokhale to take down the tweets, but he had declined to do so."He says you are not the court, so we had to approach the Court," Senior Advocate Maninder Singh, appearing for Puri, told the Court on Thursday. .Singh contended that the tweets were malafide and put out despite Gokhale being aware that the allegations were false."I will demonstrate how mala fide this gentleman is. Such uncontrolled people. I have worked for 28 years in the service. During my leave, I worked with United Nations," Singh submitted. Singh further claimed that Puri's elder daughter had helped her with the money to purchase the flat in Switzerland."My elder daughter who is a banker in New York gave me 6 lakh Swiss francs and I had mortgage of 10 lakh Swiss francs. I have put these documents before Court. I was on leave, not on deputation as alleged by Gokhale. He knows everything. It is only an edifice created to blackmail me," Singh contended. .Singh said that Puri and her husband have declared all their assets and Gokhale's tweets amounted to a clear case of defamation. "It is a case of ex facie defamation. If I may use a Hindi phrase, it is a case of Ulta chor kotwal ko daante. When we sent the legal notice, he said he was being harassed," Singh submitted. .Singh interestingly alluded to Arnab Goswami's use of 'Nation Wants to Know' on his news shows. "Absolute false statements are made. I remember a TV anchor saying 'Nation wants to know'. Now he (Gokhale) is saying he wants to know," Singh said. Singh further submitted that Puri does not hold any public office for these details to be put in public domain. "I do not hold public office to face these allegations. If he wants to put this in public domain. It is basic civility to ask me before he publishes this... I have made out a prima facie case and the balance of convenience is in my favour. There is conclusive evidence of defamation and harassment having taken place," Singh concluded..On the other hand, Gokhale's lawyer Sarim Naved said that as a citizen, Gokhale has the right to go into the assets of public functionaries. "Show me that before you put this on public domain, you approached the plaintiff," the Bench demanded. "I do not need to," replied Naved."So any Tom, Dick and Harry can write anything vilificatory against anyone on the internet?" the Court asked. Naved responded that Puri's husband is a Union Minister and that the assets of such person along with spouse should be in public domain. But in the present case, the money received from their daughter is not in the public domain, he argued."Assets of candidate and spouse should be matter of public record as per Supreme Court judgment in Lok Prahari. They have not declared the 6 lakh Swiss franc loan taken from daughter," he submitted. ."Page 186 mentions loan from the bank. There is declaration as to where money has come from. What is illegal about it?" the Court demanded. "As a voter, I have to be satisfied that income is accounted for," replied Naved."Go to the Election Commission to be satisfied. Before you throw mud at someone, you must do a due diligence exercise," the Court shot back.