1. Delhi High Court criticizes Mahua Moitra and ex-partner Jai Anant Dehadrai for lowering public discourse.
2. Bench led by Justice Prateek Jalan hears defamation case filed by Dehadrai against Moitra.
3. Mutual allegations prompt the court’s dissatisfaction with the conduct of both parties.
Kolkata, April 09: The Delhi High Court, expressed dissatisfaction with the conduct of both Trinamool Congress leader Mahua Moitra and her ex-partner Jai Anant Dehadrai, a Supreme Court lawyer, stating that their mutual allegations brought down the public discourse to a “fairly low” level.
A bench led by Justice Prateek Jalan heard a defamation case filed by Jai Anant Dehadrai against Mahua Moitra. Dehadrai alleged that Moitra made “false, abusive, and defamatory statements” against him after he accused her of receiving cash and gifts from a businessman to ask questions in the Lok Sabha.
Dehadrai’s plea painted Moitra as a person embittered by a failed relationship, seeking revenge through false complaints.
He requested an interim injunction to halt Moitra from making defamatory statements and demanded Rs 2 crore as damages.
Also Read: Sonitpur DC Issues Letters for Inspection of Election Expenditure Registers
The court emphasized that the objective is not to restrain anyone and urged both parties’ lawyers to counsel their clients to exercise caution.
It remarked that the public altercation between Mahua Moitra and Jai Anant Dehadrai reflects poorly on both individuals.
While cautioning Mahua Moitra’s counsel, the court warned of potential injunctions if objectively false statements were made.
However, it affirmed Moitra’s right to defend herself publicly if allegations surfaced in the public domain.
Addressing Dehadrai’s lawyer, the court cautioned against continued public allegations, reminding that equities would be weighed in granting any injunction.
The court stressed that Moitra should be allowed to present her perspective, including attributing Dehadrai’s accusations to their past relationship.
It highlighted that allegations, true or false, would have consequences, but Moitra deserved the opportunity to respond.
The court pledged to assess the damage inflicted on Dehadrai’s reputation and professional standing during the trial.
Subsequently, the court adjourned the hearing, permitting written statements on behalf of Mahua Moitra.
It acknowledged her intent to justify and fairly comment on the allegations. The case is set for further hearing on April 25
