In a high-stakes hearing before the Delhi High Court, a defamation suit filed by Trinamool Congress (TMC) MP Mahua Moitra against Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) MP Nishikant Dubey took an unexpected turn, with lawyer Jai Anant Dehadrai making sensational claims. Dehadrai alleged in open court that Moitra’s lawyer, Gopal Sankaranarayanan, had contacted him to request the withdrawal of the complaint against Moitra.
Dehadrai asserted that he possessed a recording of the conversation and argued that Sankaranarayanan should be disqualified from representing Moitra due to a potential conflict of interest. He stated, “There is something very disturbing. There is a very serious conflict of interest. He had a 30-minute call with me. He asked me to withdraw the CBI complaint in exchange for the dog. He can’t appear in the matter; I have the recording.”
Sankaranarayanan, in response, admitted to contacting Dehadrai but clarified that it was because Dehadrai had briefed him for various matters in the past. “Jai has instructed me in the past. That is why. When I was asked to appear in the matter, I told my client, let me speak with him. She agreed,” Sankaranarayanan explained to the Court.
Justice Sachin Datta expressed shock at the allegations and raised concerns about a potential conflict of interest if Sankaranarayanan continued to represent Moitra. The Court questioned, “I am really appalled. You are a person who is expected to maintain the highest professional standard. If you have been in contact with Defendant No 2… It means you have played the role of a mediator. Do you think you can appear in this matter?”
In response, Sankaranarayanan decided to withdraw from the case. The Court then scheduled the case for further hearings on October 31.
During the hearing, Jai Anant Dehadrai represented himself, while Nishikant Dubey was represented by advocate Abhimanyu Bhandari.
Moitra had taken legal action against Dubey, Dehadrai, and several media platforms, seeking the removal of allegedly defamatory allegations. These allegations claimed that she had asked questions in parliament regarding the Adani Group in exchange for cash from businessman Darshan Hiranandani. In return, Dubey and Dehadrai alleged that Moitra accepted bribes to pose these questions in parliament.
Dubey had written to the Speaker of the Lok Sabha, Om Birla, alleging that Moitra had agreed to ask questions on behalf of Darshan Hiranandani in exchange for cash and gifts. Dubey’s complaint was based on a letter he received from Dehadrai, who had filed a complaint with the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), claiming to have “irrefutable evidence that Moitra took bribes from Hiranandani.”
Moitra strongly denied these allegations, considering them baseless and defamatory, and sought both an injunction and damages. She had issued a legal notice to Dehadrai, Dubey, and the media platforms to remove these allegations and subsequently filed a defamation suit in the High Court.
During a previous hearing, the Court had issued summons and notices to all the respondents, granting Moitra interim relief.
Additionally, a signed statement from Darshan Hiranandani emerged in the media, corroborating Dehadrai’s claims and alleging that he used Moitra’s parliamentary login to draft and post questions targeting the Adani group. In response, Moitra questioned the authenticity of Hiranandani’s statement, highlighting that it lacked official letterhead or notarization.
Moitra went on to accuse the statement of being drafted by someone with a vested interest, suggesting it was the work of the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) or the BJP’s IT cell. She refuted claims that Hiranandani was coerced into compliance, arguing that as a successful businessman with direct access to top government officials, he had no reason to yield to her demands.