Cash For Query Row: Delhi HC Declines Mahua Moitra's Plea To Restrain BJP MP Nishikant Dubey, Lawyer From Posting Alleged Defamatory Content

The Delhi High Court on Monday refused to restrain at this stage BJP MP Nishikant Dubey and lawyer Jai Anant Dehadrai from posting allegedly defamatory content against Trinamool Congress leader Mahua Moitra on social media.

Justice Sachin Datta denied interim relief to Moitra in the defamation suit filed by her against Dubey and Dehadrai, in connection with the “cash for query” allegations.

The court had reserved judgment in Moitra's application seeking ad-interim injunction on December 20 last year. 49-year-old Moitra was expelled as a Lok Sabha MP on December 08 last year, following the Ethics panel's determination of her guilt in the matter.

Moitra has been accused of receiving cash in exchange for posing questions on behalf of businessman and friend Darshan Hiranandani. In an interview with The Indian Express, she had accepted the fact that she had provided her Parliament login and password details to Hiranandani, however, she had refuted the claim of receiving any cash from him.

In the interim, Moitra had sought an ex-parte ad-interim injunction against Dubey and Dehadrai and removal of the allegedly defamatory content posted against her on social media, including photos, videos, letters and publications.

Justice Datta observed that prima facie, it cannot be said that the allegations in the communications addressed by Dubey and Dehadrai against Moitra are false, unsubstantiated or made with reckless disregard towards the truth.

The court said that there was nothing which prevented Moitra from making full disclosure in the plaint as regards the background of the sharing of her login credentials with businessman Darshan Hiranandani, and explaining the receipt of gifts from him.

Observing that Moitra failed to make out a case for grant of any interim injunction against Dubey and Dehadrai, the court said:

”..the omission on the part of the plaintiff to do so is conspicuous, when viewed in the light of the material placed on record by the defendants in the form of (i) the public statements of the plaintiff herself; (ii) the aforementioned affidavit of Darshan Hiranandani; (iii) the report of the Ethics Committee of the Lok Sabha.”

It added: “In the above circumstances, prima- facie, it cannot be said that the allegations contained in the communications dated 14.10.2023 addressed by the defendant no. 2 and in the communication dated 15.10.2023 addressed by the defendant no. 1, are wholly false and unsubstantiated, and/or made with reckless disregard towards the truth.”

Justice Datta concluded that though Courts must come down heavily on defamatory statements made with reckless disregard for truth involving a public figure matter, the present case acquires a “completely different complexion” on account of the following factors:

- The omission on Moitra's part to disclose in the plaint about her dealings with Darshan Hiranandani or the background and rationale of sharing of her login credentials. 

- Moitra's own public statements or admissions, as brought out by Dubey and Dehadrai, regarding sharing of her login credentials with Darshan Hiranandani and receipt of several gifts from him. 

- The report of the Ethics Committee of the Lok Sabha. 

- The affidavit of Darshan Hiranandani himself, which was  placed on record in the proceedings, and which was copiously referred to in the report of the Ethics Committee of the Lok Sabha.

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.

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.

Tile: MAHUA MOITRA v. NISHIKANT DUBEY & ORS.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 256

Click Here To Read Order