Cash in query case: Legal setback for Mahua Moitra as HC rules in favour of Nishikant Dubey and Jai Dehadrai

The Delhi High Court on March 4 dismissed Trinamool Congress (TMC) Leader Mahua Moitra’s application, sought direction to restrain BJP MP Nishikant Dubey and Advocate Jai Anant Dehadrai from making, posting, publishing, uploading, or distributing any content, and stated that she accepted bribes from businessman Darshan Hiranandani to ask questions in Parliament. The bench of Justice Sachin Datta said I dismissed the injunction application.

Mahua Moitra filed a suit against BJP MP Nishikant Dubey and Advocate Jai Anant Dehadrai in October last year for defamation after they alleged that Mahua Moitra asked questions in Parliament and shared her parliament account login credentials with Hiranandani in return for favours and expensive gifts.The Delhi High Court had earlier issued notices to the defendants in Mahua Moitra’s suit. Mahua Moitra is at the centre of a political storm after BJP MP Nishikant Dubey complained to Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla that she had allegedly taken bribes from a business house to ask questions in Parliament.

Later, based on the allegations made by MP Nishikant Dubey and advocate Jai Anant Dehadrai, the Lok Sabha Ethics Committee suggested Mahua Moitra’s removal from the lower house, following which she was expelled from Parliament on December 8, 2023.

Earlier, Nishikant Dubey, in his letter to the Lok Sabha Speaker, titled “Reemergence of nasty ‘Cash for Query’ in Parliament,” had alleged “‘serious breach of privilege’, ‘contempt of the House’ and a ‘Criminal Offence’ under Section 120A of IPC” by the Trinamool Congress MP.

Nishikant Dubey claimed that an advocate, Jai Anant Dehadrai, had provided him with proof of a bribe. In her response to this letter, the TMC MP said that she would welcome a probe by the speaker after he dealt with alleged breaches of privilege by other BJP MPs.

Mahua Moitra, through lawyer Samudra Sarangi, informed the Delhi High Court that they are not pressing for any relief in the suit against media houses and social media intermediaries. As noted, the bench of Justice Sachin Datta had asked Moitra’s counsel, Samudra Sarangi, to file an amended memo of parties along with an amended suit.

Advocate Sidhant Kumar, who appeared for a media house, submitted that since the plaintiff is not pressing for relief against the media houses, she must amend the suit accordingly as there are some averments against the media houses.

Earlier, Nishikant Dubey’s lawyer, Abhimanyu Bhandari, submitted that a businessman had circulated an affidavit that he had given expensive gifts to the petitioner.

(with inputs from ANI)