Zee Media v. Mahua Moitra: Delhi High Court Seeks Video Footage Of The Incident

In the plea filed by Trinamool Congress MP Mahua Moitra for quashing of a summoning order passed by the trial court in a defamation case filed against her by Zee Media, the Delhi High Court on Friday asked her to place on record the video of the said incident, extracts of which are stated to be defamatory.

Justice Mukta Gupta asked Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal appearing for Moitra to also place on record the complaint filed by Moitra against Zee News, along with relevant transcripts.

On 25th June, 2019, Moitra had delivered a speech in the Indian Parliament and had indicated that the ruling dispensation had been conducting itself in a manner which brought about a situation that was contemplated by a poster in the Holocaust Museum in USA and referred to several signs of Fascism.

Sudhir Choudhary from Zee Media claimed in his show that Moitra's parliamentary speech was plagiarized from an article authored by Marin Longmean, available on Washington Monthly. Later Longmean clarified that the speech was not plagiarized.

During the course of hearing today, Sibal argued before the Court that the words spoken by Moitra calling the respondent 'chor' (thief) was nothing but a result of the heat of the moment and therefore the same cannot be termed as defamatory.

Reading out the transcripts from the speech, Sibal argued:

"The anchor keeps telling me 'ye bhashan aapne chori kiya hain'. The context in which you tell me that I am a thief, I say no you are a thief. 'Tumhara channel chor hain'."

"…when I have clarified that it is not a 'chori ka bhaashan', the man who made the speech says it is not stolen, you keep telling me it's stolen, and if I said that you are a 'chor', it is not defamatory."

"The reporter keep saying 'chori kiya hain' and keeps on harassing the lady and she loses her temper and says 'tum chor ho'. She walks away and they go after her. It's not a premeditated act that she did or said. She keeps telling them he has tweeted, listed to the tweet. But the reporter keeps harassing her minute by minute."

On the other hand, Advocate Vijay Agarwal appearing for Zee Media Pvt Ltd challenged the maintainability of the plea. He argued that a summoning order cannot be challenged after the expiry of the limitation period.

Accordingly, the matter was listed for further hearing on March 2.

About the Petition

Filed by Mahua Moitra, the petition sought quashing of the summoning order dated 25/09/19 passed by an Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate in a criminal defamation case filed against her by Zee Media.

Moitra had also challenged the order dated 10/01/20 whereby the ACMM had framed notice against her by noting that a Magistrate does not have power to discharge an accused in a summons triable case.

In addition to this, the petition had also asked the Court to exercise its powers under Article 227 of the Constitution to issue practice directions to the subordinate courts in relation to exercise of powers under Section 251 of the Criminal Procedure Code to discharge an accused in a summons triable case instituted on a complaint.

It was argued by the Petitioner that the Court did not consider the fact that the statements made by the Petitioner were in the form of a fair retort to the constant haranguing by the reporters of Zee Media.

Case Title: MAHUA MOITRA Vs. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR.