Earlier in March, the court had refused to grant interim relief to Moitra in her defamation suit against BJP MPs Nishikant Dubey and Dehadrai related to alleged defamatory material posted on social media in connection with the "cash-for-query" allegations against her. Had done it.
Moitra, who was expelled as Lok Sabha MP on December 8 last year on the recommendation of the Ethics Committee, is accused of receiving cash in exchange for asking questions in the House on behalf of Hiranandani Group CE Darshan Hiranandani.
Appearing before the bench of Justice Prateek Jalan, lawyer Raghav Awasthi, representing Dehadrai, stressed the public nature of the allegations and their potential impact on his client's reputation. He argued against Moitra's use of derogatory words and, citing her significant social media followers, said there should be a judicial inquiry into her actions.
In response, Moitra's counsel, advocate Samudra Sarangi, argued Moitra's intention to defend on the basis of propriety and fair comment.He promised to present evidence supporting Moitra's position, aiming to demonstrate the validity of her statements.
Justice Jalan sought to draw a fine line between protecting reputation and upholding the right to freedom of expression.
Noting the increased scrutiny of public figures, he stressed the need for balance and cautioned against explicitly defamatory comments.
Referring to recent legal precedents, including the Arvind Kejriwal case and the Bloomberg judgment, Justice Jalan referred to the criteria for imposing a publication ban, pointing out the importance of veracity in determining defamation claims.
The next hearing of the interim injunction application will be on April 25.Dehadrai's suit alleges that Moitra made defamatory statements against him on various social media platforms as well as in print and electronic media. He has sought damages of Rs 2 crore from Moitra and alleged that she called him "unemployed" and "hooked" and also sought to restrain him from publishing more derogatory material against him on social media.
Justice Jalan had in March issued summons to five media houses as well as social media platform It was fixed for 8th April.
The judge had also said that in cases of this nature, both parties are often seen as warring factions, neither merely victims nor perpetrators, and a significant part of the battle in such cases is fought outside the courtroom. .
Moitra, who was expelled as Lok Sabha MP on December 8 last year on the recommendation of the Ethics Committee, is accused of receiving cash in exchange for asking questions in the House on behalf of Hiranandani Group CE Darshan Hiranandani.
Appearing before the bench of Justice Prateek Jalan, lawyer Raghav Awasthi, representing Dehadrai, stressed the public nature of the allegations and their potential impact on his client's reputation. He argued against Moitra's use of derogatory words and, citing her significant social media followers, said there should be a judicial inquiry into her actions.
In response, Moitra's counsel, advocate Samudra Sarangi, argued Moitra's intention to defend on the basis of propriety and fair comment.He promised to present evidence supporting Moitra's position, aiming to demonstrate the validity of her statements.
Justice Jalan sought to draw a fine line between protecting reputation and upholding the right to freedom of expression.
Noting the increased scrutiny of public figures, he stressed the need for balance and cautioned against explicitly defamatory comments.
Referring to recent legal precedents, including the Arvind Kejriwal case and the Bloomberg judgment, Justice Jalan referred to the criteria for imposing a publication ban, pointing out the importance of veracity in determining defamation claims.
The next hearing of the interim injunction application will be on April 25.Dehadrai's suit alleges that Moitra made defamatory statements against him on various social media platforms as well as in print and electronic media. He has sought damages of Rs 2 crore from Moitra and alleged that she called him "unemployed" and "hooked" and also sought to restrain him from publishing more derogatory material against him on social media.
Justice Jalan had in March issued summons to five media houses as well as social media platform It was fixed for 8th April.
The judge had also said that in cases of this nature, both parties are often seen as warring factions, neither merely victims nor perpetrators, and a significant part of the battle in such cases is fought outside the courtroom. .
