In the corridors of New Delhi’s legal domain, the Delhi High Court, on the recent Monday, rebuffed the plea presented by Trinamool Congress (TMC) Leader Mahua Moitra. The petition sought judicial intervention to curtail BJP MP Nishikant Dubey and Advocate Jai Anant Dehadrai from crafting, disseminating, or circulating any content. The claim lodged by Moitra suggested that she had accepted inducements from entrepreneur Darshan Hiranandani to pose inquiries within the parliamentary arena.
Justice Sachin Datta, presiding over the bench, unequivocally declared the dismissal of the injunctive plea. This legal episode unfurled when Moitra initiated legal proceedings against BJP MP Nishikant Dubey and Advocate Jai Anant Dehadrai back in October of the preceding year. Their alleged defamation accused Moitra of soliciting questions in the parliament and allegedly exchanging her parliamentary account login credentials with Hiranandani in exchange for preferential treatment and opulent gifts.
The Delhi High Court had previously issued notices to the defendants named in Moitra’s litigation. This has placed Moitra at the epicenter of a political maelstrom following BJP MP Nishikant Dubey’s grievance to Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla, contending that she had purportedly received gratuities from a corporate entity to pose queries in Parliament.
Subsequently, predicated on the accusations proffered by MP Nishikant Dubey and Advocate Jai Anant Dehadrai, the Lok Sabha Ethics Committee recommended Moitra’s expulsion from the lower house. This recommendation culminated in her ejection from parliament on the 8th of December in the year 2023.
In a preceding communication titled “Reemergence of nasty ‘Cash for Query’ in Parliament,” Dubey had leveled accusations of ‘serious breach of privilege,’ ‘contempt of the House,’ and a ‘Criminal Offence’ under Section 120A of IPC against the Trinamool Congress MP. He maintained that Advocate Jai Anant Dehadrai had substantiated the claim with evidence of bribery. In her response, the TMC MP expressed her willingness to cooperate with an investigation by the speaker once he addressed alleged privilege breaches by other BJP MPs.
Representing Moitra, lawyer Samudra Sarangi conveyed to the Delhi High Court that they were not pursuing any remedy against media entities and intermediaries in the lawsuit. As per the court’s directive, Moitra’s counsel, Samudra Sarangi, was instructed to submit an amended memo of parties along with an amended suit.
Advocate Sidhant Kumar, representing a media entity, argued that since the plaintiff was not seeking relief against media houses, she should modify the suit accordingly, considering certain contentions against media organizations. Earlier, Abhimanyu Bhandari, the legal representative for Nishikant Dubey, asserted that a businessperson had circulated an affidavit claiming to have bestowed lavish gifts upon the petitioner.