TMC MP Saket Gokhale issues public apology amid Delhi HC action on defamatory tweets
In his statement, shared on his official X account, Gokhale expressed regret for making wrong and unverified allegations and acknowledged the harm caused by his remarks.
'I unconditionally apologise for having put-out a series of tweets against Amb. Lakshmi Murdeshwar Puri on 13th and 23rd June 2021, which tweets contained wrong and unverified allegations in relation to the purchase of property by Amb. Puri abroad, which I sincerely regret'- Saket Gokhale stated
Gokhale's apology follows a Delhi High Court order requiring him to publicly apologise to Ms Puri. The court also barred him from making further remarks against the former diplomat, the wife of Union Minister Hardeep Singh Puri.
His apology follows recent legal action by the Delhi High Court, which issued a notice directing him to explain why he should not face civil imprisonment for failing to comply with a previous court order requiring him to apologise and pay Rs 50 lakh in damages.
Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, presiding over the hearing of an execution petition filed by Puri, emphasised that despite multiple extensions, Gokhale had failed to honour the July 1, 2024, ruling and a subsequent directive on May 9, 2025.
The High Court had previously ordered the attachment of Gokhale's Salary of Rs 1,90,000 per month until the full amount of Rs 50 lakh was paid.
Senior Advocate Maninder Singh, representing Puri, argued that Gokhale had disregarded the judicial process and failed to disclose key directives to the court. (ANI)
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
42 minutes ago
- Time of India
Kusum-C scheme: Target to generate 2,400MW solar power for farmers, says George
Hassan: Under the Kusum-C scheme, which aims to solarise agricultural feeders and provide daytime electricity supply to farmers' pumpsets, 200MW of electricity is being produced. In the coming months, 545MW of electricity will be generated, stated energy minister KJ George. Speaking to reporters after the energy department's progress review meeting of Hassan district, held on Friday at the Zilla Panchayat hall in the city, George said, "Under the Kusum-C scheme, construction of solar units with a capacity of around 200MW is completed. In the next few months, solar units with a capacity of 545MW will be commissioned at 93 locations. This will help provide an adequate daytime electricity supply to farmers. " "The state govt has set a target of generating 2,400MW of solar electricity through feeder solarisation of agricultural pumpsets under the Kusum-C scheme. Recently, chief minister Siddaramaiah inaugurated a solar power unit established under the Kusum-C scheme in Gauribidanur. The feeder solarisation work is progressing at a rapid pace," the energy minister added. Under the Kusum-C scheme, generating 1MW of electricity requires 4 acres of land. If govt land is available, CM Siddaramaiah has directed that it be allocated free of cost. However, private power producers must pay Rs 25,000 per acre, which will be deposited with the district commissioner and used to improve govt schools and anganwadis in villages where the substations are located, the minister elaborated. "If private land is used, developers awarded the power generation contracts will lease the land and pay landowners a minimum of Rs 25,000 per acre," George said. Of the 4 lakh unauthorised irrigation pumpsets in the state, 3 lakh are already regularised. For pumpsets within 500m of power feeders, transformers will be installed by the department. Those beyond 500m will receive solar pumpsets under the Kusum-B scheme, he said. Earlier, during a progress review meeting, the district MLAs raised issues concerning the energy department in their constituencies. In response, George instructed the CESC MD to take swift action and reiterated that officials should proactively consult elected representatives and follow through on their suggestions. MP Shreyas Patel, MLA and Housing Board chairman KM Shivalingegowda, MLAs K Manju, Swaroop Prakash, CN Balakrishna, HK Suresh, and S Manjunath, KPTCL MD Pankaj Kumar Pandey, DC S Latha Kumari, and ZP CEO BR Poornima were present.
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
Free or fee? Parking lots stuck in neutral
Ludhiana: Almost two years have passed since the MC auctioned five parking lots in the city but fresh tenders are nowhere in sight. The civic body initially attributed the delay to the Ludhiana West bypoll. Now, they say that they are waiting for the finance and contracts committee meeting. Officials said that three sites were declared free for parking and it is unclear whether they will be included in the auction. The current parking contractor was hired for one year in October, 2022, but in the absence of an e-auction, he is still serving. Before his demise, former MLA of Ludhiana West, Gurpreet Gogi, made Sarabha Nagar market parking free of charge. When the bypoll was announced, AAP candidate Sanjeev Arora announced the Model Town Extension market and two parking lots as parking fee-free. This leaves the MC with the parking lot in Feroze Gandhi market, the multi-storey parking lot near Mata Rani Chowk, Bhadhaur House, and the remaining parking lots of BRS Nagar. Sources said that the MC prepared a proposal for auction and floated tenders in December last year but the tenders were withdrawn due to certain reasons. Officials said that they will flag the issue in the F&CC meeting, after which a decision will be taken. However, things may not be quite as simple. Members of Feroze Gandhi Market Association also want free parking. Their rationale — If Sarabha Nagar Market and Model Town Extension Market have been declared free for parking, why not them? They claimed to have requested civic authorities to hand over market parking lots to the association, as the lots belong to shopkeepers in the area but the civic body did not act on their requests. Demanding uniformity in parking policy, they asked the MC to make the parking free of charge. MC commissioner Aaditya Dachalwal said, "The decision is pending at the level of the mayor, and she has to take a call about the e-auction." Despite repeated attempts, mayor Inderjit Kaur could not be contacted for comments. Parking is a major issue in the city. With high vehicle density and limited parking space, it is common to see vehicles parked on roadsides. Also, there have been frequent complaints about overcharging and misbehaviour at parking lots managed by the existing contractor. Questions are being raised on the MC for not cancelling the agreement despite receiving complaints. Quotes Parking rates should be genuine so that people park in parking lots but here, people face serious issues. Authorities need to check irregularities Shifali Kapoor | Resident, Bharat Nagar Chowk Authorities hardly care about public grievances. They can check such issues only if they visit the field. Contractors do whatever they want to do Inderpreet Singh | Resident, Sarabha Nagar 2022 auction: 6 parking fetched Rs 3.57 crore The MC auctioned six parking lots for Rs 3.57 crore in 2022. Of these, Feroze Gandhi Market and multi-storey parking lots in Zone A were auctioned for Rs 1.29 crore and Rs1.11 crore respectively while Bhadhaur House and Sarabha Nagar parking lots were auctioned for Rs 4.71 lakh and Rs30.4 lakh. The BRS Nagar parking lot was auctioned for Rs 23.01 lakh and the Model Town Extension parking lot was auctioned for Rs 29 lakh. Failure to adopt a single policy for auction of parking sites may lead to major revenue loss. Unmet requirements Before handing over parking sites, the MC fixes certain conditions, including e-ticket machines, uniform with ID cards for employees, display boards showing parking fee, proper marking for parking of two-wheelers and cars and e-pos machines at the entrance of parking site. However, these conditions are rarely fulfilled. No penalties imposed Penalties ranging from Rs 1,000 to Rs 5,000 can be imposed for violations. If the contractor repeats the same mistake thrice, then the contract can be terminated. However, this has never happened despite several complaints of overcharging and misbehaviour by staff with people coming to the parking lots. MSID:: 122250422 413 |
Indian Express
an hour ago
- Indian Express
Excise policy scam case: What's the fear in supplying list of ‘unrelied documents', Delhi HC asks CBI
'What is the fear' in providing the list of 'unrelied upon documents (URDs)', the Delhi High Court orally asked the CBI on Friday while hearing a petition filed by the central agency against a May 22 trial court order in connection with the excise policy scam case. The trial court had directed that summons to produce documents or summons to individuals must be included in the list of URDs. 'Unrelied' documents are collected by probe agencies at the time of investigation but not used as evidence by the prosecution. The CBI has challenged the May 22 Rouse Avenue special CBI court order, which had stated that the court will proceed with the arguments on charges 'once the relied-upon digital evidence copy and the list of URDs are supplied to the accused individuals'. The trial court had reasoned that 'as the CBI must provide copies of relied-upon digital data currently with CFSL (Central Forensic Science Laboratory), this court cannot yet hear arguments on charge, given that all relied-upon documents must be available to the accused before charges'. It had directed that 'all notices under Section 91/160 CrPC and written communications sent by CBI to others, including witnesses and accused, and all written communications/documents received by CBI concerning those notices/written communications, must be included in the list of URDs if CBI does not intend to rely on them in this trial'. Section 160 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) empowers police officers to summon individuals to assist in the probe. Directing that the list of URDs should be filed in court, and copies of the list must be supplied to all accused, the trial court had directed that the investigating officer (IO) 'shall file an affidavit confirming that no other such notice/communication/document is omitted from the relied-upon documents or the URD'. Opposing the direction to the IO, the CBI, while arguing before Justice Ravinder Dudeja, also opposed the direction that notices issued to and statements made by the accused under Section 160 of CrPC — before they were considered to be an accused in the case — be considered a part of URDs. The CBI's counsel told HC, 'We have already given whatever we are relying upon, the (special CBI) judge wants the entire data to be given… CrPC sections 91 and 160 are tools of investigation, how can it be given? It is not part of the evidence collected.' 'There cannot be a procedure in the Delhi excise case which is different from any other case… (IO of) CBI has to file an affidavit for (filing all unrelied communication/notices) everything? It is unheard of… Some people have intimate messages and videos, some have competitive information (as businesses are also accused in the case)… There are privacy concerns… Inter se, conflict of privacy in URDs should not stall the trial,' the counsel added. Further opposing the supply of CrPC Section 160 notices and statements of accused recorded prior to them being made accused, the CBI added, 'Once they have been made accused, that statement is not part of relied upon or unrelied upon documents, because those statements can also trample upon somebody's right to self-incrimination.' Justice Dudeja, however, asked the CBI's counsel, '…Point is, why should it not be given… Disclosure statements of accused persons are not made part of the record… Why did you record the statement of the accused at the first instance if you were not going to rely, or not rely on such statements? You can provide the list (of URDs).' While CBI contended that if included in the list of URDs, 'it will then be seen by everybody else', Justice Dudeja orally responded, 'Show then… what is the fear… What is the prejudice being caused to you in case you hand over the copies of the notices under CrPC Section 160? Why do you not want to share these notices?' The CBI contended, 'It is not about fear, it's about what is relevant and not… (If the trial court's directions are upheld) what will happen is, it will become a practice (of including CrPC Section 160 notices) which does not exist at all… It is a roving inquiry.' A defence advocate for the accused, Rajat Bharadwaj, contended before the court, 'The fear is the entire frivolous investigation they have done will come all out in the open. Since past six months, they are not supplying us these documents… thereby these directions have been passed by the trial court.' Another defence advocate, Adit Pujari, added, 'This is a bogey being played (by CBI)… that supply of the list is going to delay arguments on charge…' While an order is awaited, Justice Dudeja indicated that the court is not inclined to stay the order till a status report is filed, all accused are served and their responses to the CBI's petition come on record. The court also indicated that it is agreeable only to the aspect of staying the direction that requires the IO to file an affidavit before the trial court.
