Mahua Moitra's Counsel In Defamation Suit Before Delhi High Court Withdraws After Advocate Dehadrai Says Her Lawyer Contacted Him

In a surprising turn of events at the Delhi High Court today, Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan withdrew from appearing for Trinamool Congress MP Mahua Moitra in her defamation suit against BJP MP Nishikant Dubey and lawyer Jai Anant Dehadrai amid claims regarding his 'conflict of interest'.

Dehadrai appeared in person and told the court that Sankaranarayanan contacted him last night and asked him to withdraw his CBI complaint in exchange for custody of dog Henry, which is a subject matter of dispute between him and and Moitra. They have accused each other of “stealing” Henry from their possession and have gone to the Delhi Police against each other.

“There is something very disturbing…There is very serious conflict of interest. He (Sankaranarayanan) had a 30 minutes call with me. He asked me to withdraw the CBI complaint in exchange for the dog. He cannot appear in the matter…I have the recording...” Dehadrai said.

Hearing this Justice Sachin Datta instantaneously expressed his disappointment, stating, “I am really appalled. You are a person who is expected to maintain the highest professional standard. If you have been in contact with the Defendant No 2 (Dehadrai)…”

Sankaranarayanan clarified that he contacted Dehadrai with Moitra's consent, only because Dehadrai has instructed him in the past. However, the Judge remarked, “You tried to play the role of the mediator. Are you then eligible to still appear in this matter? It's something that you need to answer yourself. It's your call.”

Accordingly, Sankaranarayanan said he is withdrawing from the case.

The matter is now adjourned till October 31.

Advocate Abhimanyu Bhandari appeared for Dubey in the matter.

Moitra has sought to restrain Dubey, Dehadrai and media from publishing or posting any “false defamatory content” against her on any online or offline platform. She has also sought public apology from Dubey and Dehradrai in three English, Hindi and Bengali newspapers each.

Summons in the suit were issued on October 17. The court had also issued notice on Moitra’s application seeking interim relief and listed the matter for hearing today in view of the urgency emphasised by her lawyer.

In the interim, Moitra has sought an ex-parte ad-interim injunction against the defendants and removal of the allegedly defamatory content posted against her on social media, including photos, videos, letters and publications. until the disposal of the suit.

The dispute arose after Dubey wrote a complaint to the Lok Sabha Speaker alleging that Moitra purportedly took bribes to ask questions in the Parliament. Dubey claimed that the genesis of the said allegations was a letter addressed to him by Dehadrai.

Moitra then sent a legal notice to Dubey, Dehadrai and media houses wherein she denied the allegations made against her.

The legal notice said that Dubey, for obtaining immediate political mileage, “regurgitated the false and defamatory allegations” in the letter written to the Speaker of the Lok Saba.

“Not only did Noticee No. 1 (Dubey) relay, endorse and exaggerate the false, baseless and per se defamatory allegations against our Client (Moitra), but also proceeded to leak the same to members of the media. Noticee No. 1 and 2 (Dubey and Dehadrai) are both directly responsible for defaming and maligning the reputation and goodwill of our Client for their own respective personal and political vendettas,” the legal notice said.

The legal notice also added that Moitra has never accepted any remuneration or cash or gift or benefit of any kind in relation to the discharge of her duties as a MP, including but not limited to, the questions raised by her in the Parliament.

“Noticee Nos. 1 and 2’s attempts to link the questions raised by our Client to any private persons is laughable and the alleged links themselves highlight that Noticee Nos. 1 and 2 are clutching at straws, reeks of desperation and lacks any specificity regarding evidence / material particulars,” the legal notice said.

Tile: MAHUA MOITRA v. NISHIKANT DUBEY & ORS.