Delhi High Court reserves verdict in plea by Mahua Moitra for interim order against Nishikant Dubey, Jai Anant Dehadrai

The Delhi High Court on Wednesday reserved its verdict in the plea by Trinamool Congress (TMC) leader Mahua Moitra for interim relief against Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) MP Nishikant Dubey and Advocate Jai Anant Dehadrai who had alleged that she accepted bribes from businessman Darshan Hiranandani to ask questions in parliament..Justice Sachin Datta also asked Dubey and Dehadrai whether there was any quid pro quo between Moitra and businessman Hiranandani.The Court was hearing a defamation suit by Moitra against Dubey and Dehadrai. .Dehadrai and Dubey have alleged that Moitra asked questions in parliament and shared her parliament account log in credentials with Hiranandani in return for favours and expensive gifts.Based on these allegations, the Lok Sabha Ethics Committee had suggested Moitra’s removal from the lower house following which she was expelled from the parliament on December 8. .Dehadrai’s lawyer, Senior Advocate Sanjoy Ghose, and Dubey’s counsel advocate Abhimanyu Bhandari submitted before the High Court on Wednesday that there was qui pro quo and Moitra received gifts and other benefits from Hiranandani for asking questions that favoured his business interests.Ghose and Bhandari also referred to the report of the Ethics Committee of the parliament and said that even the Committee has found quid pro quo which ultimately resulted in Moitra’s expulsion.Justice Datta asked the defendants to place the relevant extract of the Ethics Committee report on record. .The assertion was challenged by advocate Samudra Sarangi who appeared for Moitra.Sarangi said that while Moitra had received some gifts from Hiranandani, that was because Moitra and Hiranandani are friends and the gifts were not quid pro quo for asking questions in parliament. Sarangi said that Dehadrai and Dubey are still making defamatory allegations against Moitra and that they should be restrained from doing so.He added that the Ethics Committee report came after the defamatory allegations were made and therefore, the defendants cannot rely on it now..Meanwhile, Ghose argued that out of the 61 questions that Moitra asked, at least 50 were related to Hiranandani’s business interests and there was documentary evidence to show that Moitra’s credentials were logged in from Kolkata, Delhi and New Jersey on the same day.“The point, as of today, is that they (Moitra) have not been able to show that whatever I have said is substantially not true… A public person must have a thicker skin. If public good is there in exposing something then injunction should not be granted. Standard in that case is much higher,” Ghose said..The Court, after hearing submissions from all sides, reserved its verdict on Moitra’s interim relief application where she has sought an injunction against Dubey and Dehadrai from making defamatory allegations against her.