Delhi High Court Orders TMC MP Saket Gokhale To Pay Rs 50 Lakh Damages For Defamatory Tweets Against Lakshmi Puri

The Delhi High Court on Monday directed All India Trinamool Congress MP Saket Gokhale to pay Rs. 50 lakhs damages to former Indian Assistant Secretary-General to the United Nations, Lakshmi Puri, in her defamation suit against him.

Gokhale in his tweets had referred to a property purchased by Puri in Switzerland and raised questions regarding her and her husband, Union Minister Hardeep Puri's assets. He had also tagged Finance Minister Nirmala Sitaraman in the tweets and sought an ED inquiry.

Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani, while decreeing the suit in favour of Puri, asked Gokhale to put an apology in Times of India. He has also been directed to put the apology on his Twitter handle, which has to stay for 6 months.

Quoting William Shakespeare's Othello in the judgment, the court held Gokhale was making “roving allegations” against Lakshmi Puri and her husband Hardeep Puri.

The court further held that Gokhale's tweets are false and actuated by malice.

“It was therefore extremely irresponsible of defendant No.1 (Gokhale) to have put-out derogatory content by way of the offending tweets, without due verification, thereby conveying to his entire band of followers on Twitter allegations in relation to the plaintiff‟s (Lakshmi Puri) financial affairs, which are rank untrue,” the court said.

It added that the responses on Gokhale's tweets were a direct and immediate consequence of the offending tweets put-out by him and were based on his followers believing and accepting the contents to be true.

“Regrettably, messages on social-media generate a social-media chain reaction as it were, which is no less dangerous in today‟s milieu than a nuclear reaction gone out of control,” the court said.

Ruling in favour of Puri, the court said Gokhale's tweets were per-se defamatory and that the former suffered undeserved legal injury to her reputation, which warrants redressal.

At the outset, the court observed that the matter was proceeded in a somewhat unusual manner and that Gokhale, after entering appearance through his counsel and filing his response, stopped giving instructions to his counsel and the counsel later sought discharge from the matter.

The court noted that Gokhale chose simply not to appear or be represented in the matter, as if he did not care about the outcome of the proceedings at all.

“On the other hand, the plaintiff has assiduously pursued the matter, displaying seriousness of purpose in relation to the claim that she has made,” the court said.

It added: “In the present case, the false contents of the offending tweets would, without a shred of doubt, have found their way into the official ecosystem in which the plaintiff moves about, and in which her husband functions. People who matter are likely to have formed opinions in relation to the plaintiff (and her husband) based on what was contained in the offending tweets.”

The court also said that the tweets in question have been circulated by Gokhale in various political, official and non-official circles. It said that Gokhale's conduct after the offending tweets were put-out, and after he was cautioned of the falsity of their content, has been less than responsible or remorseful.

The suit contended that Gokhale's tweets were false and defamatory. It was Puri's case that the tweets were “maliciously motivated and designed accordingly, laced with canards and entail deliberate twisting of facts”.

In July 2021, a coordinate bench ruled in favour of Puri while deciding the interim injunction application in the suit.

The court had then directed Gokhale to take down the tweets in question within 24 hours. He was also restrained from posting any further defamatory material against Puri.

“Reputations, nourished and nurtured over years of selfless service and toil, may crumble in an instant; one thoughtless barb is sufficient", the Court had observed in the interim order.

The court had noted that in the said tweets, Gokhale had not only made some allegations but also stated that, "he was in possession of 'all papers/documents' relating to the transaction", thereby conveying the "prima facie impression that the misstatement was deliberate."

Counsel for Plaintiff: Mr. Maninder Singh, Senior Advocate with Ms. Meghna Mishra, Mr. Tarun Sharma, Ms. Palak Sharma, Mr. Shreyansh Rathi, Advocates

Counsel for Defendants: None for D-1; Mr. Aadhar Nautiyal and Mr. Deepak Gogia, Advocates for D-2

Title: LAKSHMI MURDESHWAR PURI v. SAKET GOKHALE

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 734

Click Here To Read Order