The Delhi High Court, on Friday, questioned Trinamool Congress MP Saket Gokhale regarding his failure to issue a public apology, as directed by the court in the defamation case filed by Lakshmi Puri, former Indian Assistant Secretary-General to the United Nations.
Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora addressed Gokhale’s counsel, inquiring why the apology had not been published despite the absence of a stay on the court’s ruling.
“Once there is no stay [of the ruling], what is your explanation of not publishing the apology?” the judge asked.
This development took place during the hearing of Puri's plea for the execution of the judgment passed by a coordinate bench on July 01, 2024. The ruling required Gokhale to issue an apology on social media within four weeks and pay Rs. 50 lakh in damages to Puri.
Read also: Recovery of Excess Amount Not Allowed If Officer Is Not at Fault: Delhi High Court
During the hearing, Gokhale’s counsel informed the court that his application seeking a recall of the judgment is pending before a coordinate bench and is scheduled for hearing on April 15. He requested that the matter be listed after that date.
However, Senior Advocate Maninder Singh, representing Puri, pointed out that the coordinate bench had only issued a notice on Gokhale’s application for condonation of delay and not on his primary application for recalling the order. He also emphasized that no stay had been granted on the July 01 ruling.
Gokhale’s counsel stated that he had complied with a previous court order by submitting an affidavit disclosing his assets, liabilities, and bank account details. However, Singh argued that the affidavit was “selectively” filed and “grossly deficient”, alleging that it failed to disclose movable and immovable assets already available in the public domain.
Read also: Supreme Court Dismisses Plea for FIR Against Justice Yashwant Varma, Cites Pending In-House Inquiry
Singh further contended that these omissions are actionable under Order 21 Rule 41 (3) of the CPC.
As Gokhale’s counsel sought an adjournment until April 15, the court firmly remarked:
“If nothing happens on April 15, then you'll have to publish the apology, no?”
The judge further stated:
“If you don't have a stay, you don't have the option of not publishing the apology, right?…I'll keep it on [April 24]. In case there is no stay, you'll publish an apology.”
The next hearing is now scheduled for April 24.
Background of the Defamation Suit
The defamation suit was filed by Lakshmi Puri, who was aggrieved by Gokhale’s tweets regarding a property purchase in Switzerland. In his tweets, Gokhale questioned the assets of Puri and her husband, Union Minister Hardeep Puri. He had also tagged Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman, seeking an investigation by the Enforcement Directorate (ED).
In its judgment, the coordinate bench, while ruling in favor of Puri, directed Gokhale to publish an apology in the Times of India. Additionally, he was ordered to post the apology on his Twitter handle, where it must remain for six months.
Citing William Shakespeare’s Othello, the court observed that Gokhale was making “roving allegations” against Lakshmi Puri and Hardeep Puri.
The suit contended that Gokhale’s tweets were false and defamatory, arguing that they were “maliciously motivated and designed accordingly, laced with canards and entail deliberate twisting of facts”.
In July 2021, a coordinate bench had granted interim relief to Puri by ruling in her favor. At that time, the court had directed Gokhale to take down the tweets within 24 hours and restrained him from posting any further defamatory content against Puri.
With the matter now set for the next hearing on April 24, the court has made it clear that without a stay order, compliance with its directives is mandatory.
Title: LAKSHMI MURDESHWAR PURI v. SAKET GOKHALE
