HC refuses to halt contempt proceedings against Gokhale
The contempt petition stems from Gokhale’s failure to comply with a court ruling that directed him to issue an unconditional apology on social media and pay ₹50 lakh in damages to Puri in a defamation suit.
letters@hindustantimes.com
New Delhi The Delhi high court on Thursday declined to grant an immediate stay on contempt proceedings initiated by former diplomat Laxmi Puri, who is married to Union minister Hardeep Puri, against Trinamool Congress (TMC) parliamentarian Saket Gokhale.
The contempt petition stems from Gokhale’s failure to comply with a court ruling that directed him to issue an unconditional apology on social media and pay ₹50 lakh in damages to Puri in a defamation suit.
Puri, a former Indian assistant secretary-general to the United Nations, filed the defamation suit after Gokhale posted a series of tweets in 2021 questioning the ownership of an apartment registered in her name, and calling for an Enforcement Directorate (ED) probe into the financial assets of the Puri couple.
On July 1, 2024, the high court ruled in Puri’s favour, stating that Gokhale’s tweets had “diminished and harmed” her reputation. Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani, while delivering the verdict, took exception to Gokhale’s attempts to raise questions about an apartment purchased by Puri in 2005. The court observed that his real intent appeared to be targeting her husband, a sitting Union minister. Justice Bhambhani ordered Gokhale to retain the published apology for six months and prohibited him from making any future defamatory statements against Puri.
On Thursday, a bench led by justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav refused to halt contempt proceedings for Gokhale’s failure to comply with the court’s order, despite his counsel urging the court to stay the matter until a decision was made on his application seeking recall of the July 2024 ruling.
“While posting the initial tweets, you (Gokhale) should have been careful enough. The decree is pronounced against you. I am not going to stay [the proceedings]. Let the contempt proceedings continue,” justice Kaurav told Gokhale’s counsel.
The court also issued a notice on Gokhale’s plea seeking condonation of a 184-day delay in filing his recall application and set April 15 as the next date of hearing.
“Going by the observations of the court, this is an ex parte (without the other side joining the proceedings) order, even if it is. The record suggests you were aware of the pendency of the proceedings. The judgment was delivered, and you reacted the very next day. Normally, in such cases, parties should not be heard. Looking at this background, your client does not warrant any special sympathy. Still, I am issuing notice in your delay application. If you can satisfy us on the delay, then we’ll proceed,” the court said.
Gokhale’s recall application argued that the order was passed ex parte without giving him an opportunity to be heard. However, senior advocate Maninder Singh, representing Puri, opposed the plea, contending that it was merely an attempt to stall the contempt and execution proceedings against Gokhale. Singh further argued that Gokhale was fully aware of the defamation suit and its proceedings.
Notably, on February 28, the high court granted Gokhale a final opportunity to respond to Puri’s contempt petition, setting April 18 as the deadline. The court warned that a failure to respond could result in an order requiring his personal appearance in court.
