The Delhi High Court on Tuesday declined to accept the written apology tendered by Trinamool Congress (TMC) MP Saket Gokhale in a defamation case filed by former diplomat Lakshmi Murdeshwar Puri, saying the affidavit submitted did not comply with the court’s earlier directives.
A division bench comprising Justices Navin Chawla and Renu Bhatnagar was hearing Gokhale’s appeal against a July 1, 2024, single-judge ruling, which had barred him from posting any further content against Puri on social media or any online platform. The single judge had also ordered him to issue a public apology and pay ₹50 lakh in damages.
“This is not done… you first withdraw this affidavit, then we will hear you,” the bench told Gokhale’s counsel, noting that the affidavit fell short of the apology mandated by the earlier judgment. The court observed that there were discrepancies between the apology required and the one submitted by Gokhale.
The matter is now listed for further hearing on July 22.
Senior advocate Amit Sibal, representing Gokhale, argued that his client had complied with the previous directions by filing an unconditional apology through an affidavit and publicly posting it on his X (formerly Twitter) handle. However, senior advocate Maninder Singh, appearing for Puri, contested the submission, citing Gokhale’s alleged non-compliance and questionable conduct during prior contempt proceedings.
Gokhale had previously sought to issue a conditional apology, which the court had rejected, insisting instead on an unequivocal public apology. He later challenged a May 9 order of the single judge in the contempt plea, which required him to publish the apology both on his social media handle and in a prominent daily newspaper. The deadline for compliance expired on May 23.
Gokhale was represented through law firm Karanjawala & Co.
The controversy stems from a 2021 lawsuit filed by Lakshmi Puri, former Indian ambassador and wife of Union Minister Hardeep Singh Puri, alleging that Gokhale made baseless and defamatory allegations concerning her financial dealings related to a property in Geneva. The High Court, in its July 1 verdict, found the remarks damaging and unsubstantiated, leading to a permanent injunction against further defamatory content.
Gokhale’s attempt to have the judgment recalled was also previously rejected by a coordinate bench on May 2.
