Trinamool’s Saket Gokhale Told To Pay Rs 50 Lakh Damages In Defamation Case

Trinamool's Saket Gokhale Told To Pay Rs 50 Lakh Damages In Defamation Case

The legal battle stems from tweets made Mr Gokhale on June 13 and June 26 in 2021.

New Delhi:

The Delhi High Court today directed Trinamool Congress leader and Rajya Sabha MP, Saket Gokhale, to pay Rs 50 lakh in damages in a defamation case filed by former diplomat Lakshmi Puri. The court also issued additional instructions, including a public apology on social media which must remain on his handle for at least six months. 

The legal battle stems from tweets made Mr Gokhale on June 13 and June 26 in 2021. In these tweets, Gokhale alleged that Lakshmi Puri had purchased property in Switzerland disproportionate to her income. He also mentioned her husband, Union Minister for Petroleum and Natural Gas, Hardeep Singh Puri.

The court also ordered Mr Gokhale to publish his apology in a leading national newspaper, adding that the order must be complied with within eight weeks.

In her 2021 lawsuit, filed through the legal firm Karanjawala and Company, Lakshmi Puri accused Mr Gokhale of making “false and factually incorrect, per se defamatory, slanderous, and libellous statements/imputations” against her and her family. She argued that Mr Gokhale’s claims about her income were baseless, as she was on deputation from the Government of India to the UN Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD).

In 2021, Senior advocate Maninder Singh, representing Lakshmi Puri, argued that the tweets were defamatory, malicious, and based on false information. Mr Singh emphasized that Ms Puri did not hold any public office at the time, and hence, her private transactions should not have been subjected to public scrutiny without her consent. He criticised Mr Gokhale for not verifying the facts before making public allegations, describing his actions as an attack on Puri’s integrity.

On the other hand, Mr Gokhale’s counsel, Advocate Sarim Naved, contended that as a citizen, Mr Gokhale had the right to question the assets of public figures. Naved argued that the involvement of public money justified Mr Gokhale’s scrutiny of the transactions.

Reference Url