In a recent development before the Delhi High Court, Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma on Tuesday recused herself from hearing a petition filed by Trinamool Congress (TMC) Member of Parliament Mahua Moitra. The plea challenges a criminal defamation case brought against the parliamentarian by Zee Media.
Directing the matter to be placed before a different bench next week, the Court also ordered that the existing interim protections granted to Moitra will continue in the meantime.
During the proceedings, Justice Sharma indicated her decision to step away from the case, noting the involvement of journalist Sudhir Chaudhary as a central figure in the dispute. The judge reasoned that it would be inappropriate for her to hear the matter, pointing out that she had previously recused herself from hearing a related defamation plea filed by Moitra against Chaudhary.
The protracted legal battle between the TMC MP and the news organization traces its origins back to a television broadcast on July 2, 2019. Sudhir Chaudhary, who was then anchoring for Zee News, aired a segment alleging that Moitra’s parliamentary speech regarding the “rising fascism in India” was plagiarized. The broadcast claimed her address was lifted from an article by Martin Longman published in the American magazine, Washington Monthly.
Moitra vehemently denied the plagiarism allegations. She maintained that her speech was an original elaboration on how the “seven early warning signs of fascism” apply to the current socio-political climate in India. She further asserted that during her speech, she had explicitly credited a poster at the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum as the source of the seven signs.
Following the broadcast, Moitra initiated a defamation lawsuit against Zee News and Chaudhary.
The current petition before the High Court stems from a retaliatory criminal defamation case filed by Zee Media against Moitra.
Representing the TMC MP on Tuesday, Senior Advocate Vikas Pahwa, accompanied by Advocate Adit Pujari, explained the sequence of events that led to Zee’s counter-suit. Pahwa submitted to the Court that shortly after Moitra’s speech in Parliament, Chaudhary aired the critical broadcast.
According to the senior counsel, a journalist from the news network subsequently confronted Moitra outside Parliament, repeatedly harassing her by labeling her address a “stolen speech.” Provoked by the repeated accusations, Moitra allegedly retorted that she was not the thief, but rather the news channel was the thief. Based on this specific retaliatory remark, the news organization proceeded to file the present criminal defamation case against her.
The High Court refrained from evaluating the merits of the defamation proceedings on Tuesday. Acknowledging the conflict of interest stemming from her previous recusal involving the same parties, Justice Sharma directed the registry to list Moitra’s plea before another bench next week, while ensuring her interim relief remains active.
