 | « Back to article | Print this article |
The Delhi high court on Monday said Trinamool Congress leader Mahua Moitra cannot be prevented from defending herself against allegations made by an estranged friend in public domain as long as her statements are not objectively false.
The court made the oral observation while dealing with a plea by lawyer Jai Anant Dehadrai seeking an interim injunction to stop the expelled Lok Sabha MP from making 'defamatory' statements against him.
Dehadrai has filed a lawsuit against Moitra seeking damages of Rs 2 crore for making certain allegedly defamatory statements against him in the backdrop of the cash-for-query row.
Moitra was expelled from the Lok Sabha on December 8 following accusations by the plaintiff that she took bribes from businessman and Hiranandani Group CEO Darshan Hiranandani to ask questions in Parliament.
"If you put the allegations in the public domain, she has every right to defend herself. Except that she cannot make any objectively false statements," said Justice Prateek Jalan during the hearing.
"If both the parties say we don't wish to have this battle in public domain, then it is one thing. (But) If you are going to make a public comment, then she has to have the space to defend herself," added the judge.
Counsel for the politician said her statements are not defamatory and can be justified on several grounds, including that they qualify as 'fair comment'.
Counsel for the plaintiff, however, said there is a 'power gap' between the parties and the defendant made certain factually false comments about his professional life and imputed motives to him.
The court 'appealed' to Moitra's good sense and asked her counsel to take instructions in the matter since there have not been any statements in recent times.
The court said that given the nature of the past relationship between the two, it was normal to think that the other person was wrong but the parties brought down the public discourse to a 'fairly low' level.
"To say objectively untrue statements against someone, then we will have to pass an injunction against her. That is why I am appealing to her good sense. Both parties here are educated.. but they have brought the public discourse to a fairly low level on both sides," Justice Jalan said.
"So, will you kindly take instructions? She has not said anything since November. I have more pressing issues than these kinds of injunction applications," the court told Moitra's lawyer.
The court also questioned the plaintiff's lawyer about a statement he gave to the media after the last hearing.
"Mr (Raghav) Awasthi, you will also advise your client to be very careful. If he is going to be a plaintiff in my suit... equities will be balanced in granting an injunction. It is because you are making statements against her in the public domain, it requires her to be given scope to defend. Did you make any statement to press after the last hearing?" the court told Dehadrai's lawyer.
"If he is going to continue, even after filing the suit, in public domain then I will have to give that person the room to defend herself," added the court.
In the lawsuit filed through lawyer Mukesh Sharma, Dehadrai said after he lodged a complaint with the CBI with respect to Moitra allegedly receiving illegal gratification for unauthorisedly providing her Lok Sabha login credentials to a third party, she 'embarked on a ceaseless campaign of slander and abuse' to disseminate 'false, abusive, and defamatory statements' against him.
The plea said Moitra's statements have lowered the plaintiff's esteem in the eyes of friends, family and colleagues as they portray him as a 'person who has become bitter due to a failed personal relationship and is now filing false complaints to take revenge for the said reason'.
The court had issued summons on the lawsuit on March 20.
It has listed the matter for further hearing on April 25.