The Delhi High Court on Wednesday came down heavily on Advocate Jai Anant Dehadrai for accusing Biju Janata Dal (BJD) leader and Senior Advocate Pinaki Misra of hatching a conspiracy against Prime Minister Narendra Modi.
The single-judge Bench of Justice Jasmeet Singh orally remarked that conspiracy against a Prime Minister amounted to treason and was a very serious offence.
It said that an allegation that someone conspiring against a Prime Minister could not be made irresponsibly and needed to be based on cogent and substantial reasons.
The single-judge Bench made the observations while hearing a defamation suit filed by BJD MP Misra against Advocate Dehadrai. The lawyer had accused Misra of hatching a conspiracy to target PM Modi.
The High Court today told the counsel appearing for Dehadrai that it had no problem with Dehadrai’s exercise of freedom of expression but what the lawyer was saying had serious consequences as it affected the highest office of the country.
Noting that it cannot permit ‘trigger-happy’ accusations of there being a conspiracy against the PM, the High Court directed Dehadrai to either substantiate his allegations against Misra, or be ready for injunction.
Calling it a very limited issue, which bothered the Court, the single-judge Bench said that it may agree with Dehadrai stating that the plaintiff was a politician and that a politician could not be thin-skinned. However, such an allegation was very serious.
Noting that both Misra and Dehadrai were reputed members of the Bar, it said Dehadrai should not do this to a fellow Bar member.
Earlier on April 8, the High Court had reprimanded Advocate Dehadrai for addressing the media after it issued summons to Trinamool Congress leader Mahua Moitra in a defamation case filed by the lawyer.
Stating that he would himself watch the video of Dehadrai’s address to the media and then decide on his conduct, Justice Jalan remarked that if the lawyer continued to make the statements in public domain against Moitra, the High Court would give the AITC leader the liberty to defend herself.
Appearing for Dehadrai, Advocates Raghav Awasthi and Mukesh Sharma said that they would advise their client not to make any statement on this issue to the media.
Appearing for Moitra, Advocate Samudra Sarangi alleged that after the matter was heard by the Court, Dehadrai spoke to the media.
The single-judge Bench then remarked that both Moitra and Dehadrai have brought the public discourse to a fairly low level.
It said the allegations made against Dehadrai did not impute any stand one way or the other as to the correctness of the allegation made by the lawyer against Moitra.
Even without those words [calling Dehadrai jilted lover, lunatic etc], she could have taken whatever defence she could.
At this stage, as the Court could view the situation, Moitra would have to defend herself in the public domain if Dehadrai’s allegations were in the public domain. It would perhaps be a different thing if his allegations were made only to the statutory authorities, noted the single-judge Bench.
It noted that the correctness of the allegations made by Dehadrai would have to be determined at trial.
The High Court further said that the correctness of the Parliamentary Ethics Committee report against Moitra was not binding on the Court.
Noting that the Ethics Committee was not a judicial proceeding, the single-judge Bench said that it was for the Court to decide whether the allegations were true or not. She has taken the defence of justification.
justice Jalan further remarked that as far as Moitra’s statements about Dehadrai’s actions being motivated were concerned, it was her perception and it was difficult to show any proof for that.
Advocate Awasthi submitted that the allegations made by Dehadrai were not meant for the press, but as a service to the nation.
He referred to the various interviews given by Moitra and stressed that she used derogatory words against Dehadrai and alleged that he was acting on the instance of a political party (BJP).
He further argued that there was a huge power difference between Dehadrai and Moitra, as the latter was a Member of Parliament and politician with a huge following.
He said Dehadrai was a private citizen, while Moitra had millions of followers on X [formerly called Twitter]. The power differential was much higher.
The High Court was hearing the defamation suit filed by Dehadrai against Moitra, in which it had issued summons against Moitra and notices on the suit on March 20.
Advocate Sarangi argued that Moitra was taking the defence of justification and fair comment with respect to the allegations she made against Dehadrai. He sought some time to file written statements and documents in the case to demonstrate the prima facie validity of Moitra’s defence.
The Court then adjourned the case to April 25.
Advocate Dehadrai, who was previously in a relationship with Moitra, has argued that she made several defamatory allegations against him and gave interviews to the media, calling him ‘jobless’ and ‘jilted’.
He filed a Rs 2 crore defamation suit seeking directions to restrain Moitra from making defamatory allegations against him.
The suit further sought orders against media organisations CNN News 18, India Today, Gulf News, The Guardian, and The Telegraph to take down the defamatory content against Dehadrai and not to publish such content against him. Similar directions were sought against X and Google.
Dehadrai had earlier alleged that Moitra accepted bribes from businessman Darshan Hiranandani for asking questions in Parliament. Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) MP Nishikant Dubey filed the complaint before the Lok Sabha Speaker.
Moitra subsequently sued Dehadrai and Dubey for defamation. However, her plea for interim injunction was rejected by the High Court. The Bench ruled that the allegations that Moitra shared her parliamentary login credential with Darshan Hiranandani and received gifts from him were not ‘totally false’.