Why Did the Delhi HC Refuse to Recall Its Judgment Against Trinamool MP Saket Gokhale?
Click to start listening
Synopsis
In a notable ruling, the Delhi High Court upheld its decision requiring Trinamool Congress MP Saket Gokhale to pay substantial damages for defamation. The court's firm stance emphasizes accountability in public discourse, particularly regarding serious allegations against individuals in high-profile positions.
Key Takeaways
- The Delhi High Court upheld its decision requiring Saket Gokhale to pay Rs 50 lakh in damages.
- Gokhale must publish an apology within four weeks.
- The ruling emphasizes the importance of accountability in public statements.
- Gokhale’s salary will be withheld until the damages are paid.
- The case serves as a warning against defamatory statements.
New Delhi, May 2 (NationPress) The Delhi High Court on Friday denied a request to overturn its previous ruling requiring Trinamool Congress Rajya Sabha member Saket Gokhale to compensate Rs 50 lakh in damages to former diplomat Lakshmi Puri, who is the spouse of Union Minister Hardeep Singh Puri.
A single-judge Bench, presided over by Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav, turned down Gokhale's motion for the recall of the judgment issued in July of the previous year.
The Delhi High Court mandated that the Trinamool leader pay Rs 50 lakh in damages following a defamation suit lodged by Lakshmi Puri. Additionally, the court instructed Gokhale to publish a formal apology in a newspaper, as well as on his social media account on X, within a four-week timeframe for disseminating false and unverified claims.
Furthermore, the Delhi High Court stipulated that the apology tweet on Gokhale's X account must be visible for a duration of six months.
Recently, Gokhale's salary as a Member of Parliament was ordered to be withheld until he deposits the Rs 50 lakh with the court registry.
In December of last year, the Delhi High Court had issued a notice pertaining to a contempt petition filed by Lakshmi Puri against Gokhale for his “willful and deliberate non-compliance” with the court's ruling. The court had instructed the Rajya Sabha member to submit an affidavit within four weeks detailing all his assets, properties, and financial accounts.
The defamation lawsuit stemmed from Gokhale's series of posts on X, accusing Lakshmi Puri of acquiring property in Switzerland that was disproportionate to her income, and he also implicated Hardeep Puri in these tweets. The Delhi High Court concluded that the plaintiff experienced irreparable damage due to Gokhale's defamatory remarks. The ruling stated: “The defendant (Gokhale) is prohibited from disseminating any further defamatory statements against the plaintiff. The damages awarded to the plaintiff amount to Rs 50,00,000 for the injury inflicted on her reputation.
Point of View
It is imperative to recognize the balance between freedom of expression and the responsibility that comes with it. The Delhi High Court's ruling against Saket Gokhale underscores the necessity for public figures to exercise caution when making allegations, especially when those allegations can severely tarnish someone's reputation. The judiciary's role in upholding these standards is critical in maintaining the integrity of public discourse.
NationPress
17/06/2025
Frequently Asked Questions
What was the basis of the defamation case against Saket Gokhale?
The defamation case was initiated by Lakshmi Puri after Gokhale made unverified claims regarding her financial dealings and property acquisitions.
What penalties did the Delhi High Court impose on Gokhale?
The court ordered Gokhale to pay Rs 50 lakh in damages and publish an apology in a newspaper and on social media.
How long must Gokhale's apology be visible?
The apology tweet must remain visible on Gokhale's X account for six months.
What further actions did the court require from Gokhale?
Gokhale was instructed to provide an affidavit outlining his assets and financial accounts.
What does this case indicate about defamation laws in India?
This case highlights the judiciary's commitment to protecting individuals' reputations and the serious consequences of defamation in the public sphere.
