In a recent development, Trinamool Congress Member of Parliament (MP) Mahua Moitra informed the Delhi High Court that she will no longer pursue relief against media houses in her defamation suit related to the ‘cash for query’ controversy.
Moitra’s counsel relayed to Justice Sachin Datta that she intends to seek relief only against Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) MP Nishikant Dubey and advocate Jai Anant Dehadrai.
Advocate Abhimanyu Bhandari, representing Dubey, pointed out that Moitra had given an interview admitting to providing her parliamentary login ID and password to businessman Darshan Hiranandani, contradicting her claims in the suit. This, he argued, constituted perjury.
Advocate Siddhant Kumar, representing news outlet ANI, suggested that since Moitra was no longer pursuing relief against the media outlets, her suit should be amended to reflect this change, as it initially included allegations against these media organizations.
The Court directed advocate Samudra Sarangi, representing Moitra, to update the memo of parties accordingly and adjourned the case to a later date, December 5.
Moitra’s lawsuit targets Dubey, Dehadrai, and multiple media platforms, seeking orders for them to remove allegedly defamatory content that accuses her of posing questions in parliament against the Adani Group in exchange for cash from businessman Darshan Hiranandani. A total of 15 media entities are implicated in the suit.
Moitra has also requested remedies against X (formerly Twitter), Google, and YouTube to delete purportedly defamatory content about her from these platforms.
Dubey and Dehadrai have alleged that Moitra accepted bribes in return for asking parliamentary questions. Dubey wrote to the Speaker of the Lok Sabha, Om Birla, alleging that Moitra had agreed to raise questions in parliament on behalf of business magnate Darshan Hiranandani in exchange for cash and gifts.
Dubey’s complaint stemmed from a letter he received from Dehadrai, who had lodged a complaint with the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), claiming to possess “irrefutable evidence that Moitra took bribes from Hiranandani.”
Moitra has vehemently denied these allegations, deeming them baseless and defamatory. In addition to an injunction, she is seeking damages, asserting that the actions of Dubey, Dehadrai, and others have harmed her dignity, reputation, respect, and goodwill.
She had sent legal notices to Dehadrai, Dubey, and the media, urging them to retract the allegations. Subsequently, she filed a defamation suit in the High Court.
Meanwhile, Hiranandani’s signed statement has surfaced in the media, corroborating Dehadrai’s claims. In the statement, Hiranandani admitted to using Moitra’s parliamentary login to draft and post questions in parliament, targeting the Adani Group. Hiranandani also claimed that he sought to please Moitra by providing her with gifts and support for renovating her official residence in Delhi.
In response, Moitra questioned the authenticity of Hiranandani’s affidavit, noting the absence of official letterhead. She alleged that the affidavit had been drafted by an individual affiliated with the PMO and the BJP’s IT cell, further accusing it of glorifying Prime Minister Modi and Gautam Adani while linking her and her alleged corruption to their opponents.
Moitra also refuted claims that Hiranandani acquiesced to her demands out of fear of displeasing her