A Delhi court delivered a split ruling on Wednesday, October 28, 2026, in an injunction battle that pits TMC MP Mahua Moitra against a petitioner identified as Subhash Garg — and Moitra moved swiftly to set the record straight on what the order actually said.

What the court ordered — and what it didn't

The order, as Moitra describes it, did two distinct things. The court restrained Garg from using the term 'blackmailer' in connection with the individual Moitra publicly calls 'Fake Degree Dubey.' Because Moitra had earlier retweeted Garg's post containing that word, she says she voluntarily took it down to comply. So far, a partial concession.

But the more consequential half of the order — Garg's plea to stop Moitra from calling the person 'Fake Degree Dubey' — was flatly refused by the court. That is the outcome Moitra is underlining: the core label she has applied, and the allegation it carries, remains legally unchallenged and judicially unrestrained as of today.

Moitra calls out the media's framing

Moitra's post is directed as much at legal-news coverage as at the courtroom result itself. She explicitly flags a legal news portal and others, writing: 'pls fix reporting' — signalling that coverage had, in her reading, mischaracterised the outcome as a victory for Garg or as a broader restriction on her speech. The correction she is demanding is precise: the court did not injunct her from using the 'Fake Degree Dubey' phrase.

It is a distinction that matters enormously in defamation and injunction law. Courts routinely grant narrow relief — restraining one specific word or phrase — while explicitly declining to muzzle the broader allegation. Moitra's argument is that any headline suggesting she 'lost' misreads a ruling that denied the petitioner's primary ask.

The bigger picture: MPs, courts, and the limits of injunctions

Indian civil courts face a recurring tension in cases involving public figures and political speech. Petitioners seeking injunctions against MPs or journalists frequently win restraints on the sharpest, most colourful language — 'blackmailer,' 'thief,' 'traitor' — while courts have historically been reluctant to bar a politician from articulating the underlying allegation in plainer terms. The space between 'you cannot call him a blackmailer' and 'you cannot question his credentials' is exactly where this case now sits.

For Mahua Moitra, who has built a public profile around sharp-edged political confrontation, the outcome preserves her ability to continue making the credential allegation in public — which, given the attention the case has drawn, is likely the terrain that matters most going forward.

The next hearing or any appeal in the injunction proceedings will determine whether Garg pursues a broader restraint — or whether the court's refusal today signals the ceiling of available relief.