Delhi HC refuses to accept Saket Gokhale's apology
The court said there was a difference in the two apologies'— the one directed to be published by the single Judge Bench of the court and the one filed by Mr. Gokhale.
The court was dealing with Mr. Gokhale's appeal against a single Judge's July 1, 2024 verdict restraining the TMC leader from publishing further on social media or any online platform against Ms. Puri. The single Judge also directed him to apologise to her and pay ₹50 lakh in damages.
The court said the contents of his affidavit couldn't be taken on record while asking Mr. Gokhale's counsel to withdraw the apology and file a fresh one. It would hear the case again on July 22.
Senior advocate Amit Sibal, representing Mr. Gokhale, submitted his client filed an affidavit tendering an unconditional apology beside publishing a public apology on his X handle in compliance with the previous directions.
Senior advocate Maninder Singh, appearing for Ms. Puri, opposed the submission and raised questions over Mr. Gokhale's conduct before the single judge in the contempt proceedings.
Mr. Gokhale had previously assured of publishing the apology after the court refused to allow him to publish a conditional one.
Ms. Puri had filed the defamation suit before the court in response to tweets made by Mr. Gokhale in June 2021 making reckless and false allegations about her financial affairs in the context of an apartment that she owned in Geneva.
Mr. Gokhale had in the series of post questioned how Ms. Puri could have bought a house for 1.6 million Swiss Franc in Geneva, Switzerland, in 2006 with her then income. Ms. Puri's said these posts tarnished her goodwill and reputation.
In the July 1, 2024, aside from directing publication of an apology and payment of ₹50 lakh as damages, the court restrained Mr. Gokhale from publishing any more content on any social media or electronic platform concerning his imputation against Ms. Puri. The court noted these allegations were made without verification and had tarnished her reputation.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
3 hours ago
- Indian Express
Tailor Kanhaiya Lal's wife writes to Modi seeking release of Udaipur Files
The wife of murdered Udaipur tailor Kanhaiya Lal Teli, Jashoda, has written to Prime Minister Narendra Modi seeking his help in the release of the film Udaipur Files. On July 10, just a day ahead of its release, the Delhi High Court temporarily stayed the release of the film after it was highlighted that the thematic expression of the film was akin to hate speech and vilification of Muslims. In her letter sent Saturday, Jashoda wrote, 'The Muslim organisations and their lawyer have stopped the release of the film, on my husband's murder, through the courts. I have seen the film myself; it is the story of his murder. There is nothing wrong in it. He was killed three years ago and now the lawyer is saying that whatever happened cannot be shown in the film. (My) children are saying that now the Modi government will decide on the film.' 'You know the wrong which was done to us. And now those same people who killed him are going to the courts. I request you to get this film released so that the whole world can know the truth,' she wrote. She has asked Modi 'to please give us time to meet. I want to come to Delhi and meet you with my two children.' On June 28, 2022, two persons — Mohammad Riyaz and Ghouse Mohammad — posed as customers and hacked to death Kanhaiya Lal Teli at his shop in Udaipur over a post shared by him on social media in support of Nupur Sharma, a BJP spokesperson who was suspended for her objectionable remarks about the Prophet during a live television debate. In the Delhi High Court, petitioner Maulana Arshad Madani, Principal of the Darul Uloom Deoband, had filed the PIL pointing out that the movie is 'replete with dialogues and instances that had led to communal disharmony in the very recent past and thus carry every potential to again stoke the same communal sentiments.' The division bench of Chief Justice D K Upadhyaya and Justice Anish Dayal relegated the petitioner to the Central government to seek a review of the Central Board of Film Certification's decision to grant a certificate greenlighting the release of the film.
India Gazette
4 hours ago
- India Gazette
Delhi HC issues notice on plea to quash rape FIR alleging malicious prosecution
New Delhi [India], July 12 (ANI): The Delhi High Court has issued notice in a writ petition filed by a man and his father, seeking quashing of the First Information Report registered under several provisions of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023. The FIR, filed by a woman complainant, alleges rape, criminal intimidation, and other serious charges against Rahul Yadav. The FIR was registered at Police Station Jagatpuri under BNS sections 64(2), 79, 123, and 351(2). The bench of Justice Ravinder Dudeja issued notice to respondents and listed the matter for October 9, 2025. The petitioner, represented by Advocates Kunal Yadav and Kartikey Yadav, stated that the FIR is a classic case of a consensual relationship turning sour, and the criminal process being weaponised to harass the petitioners. They argued that the complainant and her family had falsely implicated Rahul Yadav following personal disputes, caste-based discrimination, and financial demands. Rahul Yadav, a young advocate and judicial service aspirant, claims that he was in a romantic and consensual relationship with the complainant since September 2023, while residing in a rented apartment in the same house as the complainant's family in Jagatpuri. According to the petition, their first instance of physical intimacy occurred on September 22, 2023, with the complainant's full consent. The petition states that in February 2024, the accused, Rahul, proposed marriage to the complainant, but her family allegedly rejected the proposal with casteist remarks and began threatening him. The complaint claims that her parents warned of implicating him in a false case. Further, the petition includes screenshots of WhatsApp, Telegram, and text message chats purportedly showing their ongoing consensual relationship and the complainant's contradictory conduct, including demands for gifts and money, and an alleged affair with another man. The petition points out an unexplained timeline gap between the start of Rahul's tenancy in June 2023 and the date of the alleged first incident in August 2024, raising questions about the credibility of the accusations. It also highlights a significant delay in the FIR's registration--more than a month after the last alleged incident in April 2025--despite the complainant not raising any alarm during the intervening months. The second petitioner, Rahul's father and a serving Sub-Inspector in Uttar Pradesh Police, has also been named in the FIR. The petition asserts that the father was discharging official duties in Ballia between April 9-12, 2025, as proven by official General Diary entries. It terms his implication as a pressure tactic and an abuse of the criminal process. An Additional Sessions Judge at Karkardooma Court had earlier granted interim protection to Rahul Yadav on May 20, 2025, acknowledging the absence of prima facie material for immediate arrest, stated the plea. (ANI)
Indian Express
5 hours ago
- Indian Express
Delhi HC expunges adverse remarks against judge for summoning senior police officials
The Delhi High Court last week expunged the adverse remarks it made in an order against a judicial officer for summoning senior Delhi Police officials in a Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act case. Justice Amit Bansal, on July 8, expunged parts of a judgment he had passed in December 2023 after the judicial officer informed the court that the observations made would affect his annual confidential report and cause prejudice to him. Justice Bansal also took into account that the Supreme Court had earlier observed that courts should show restraint in making adverse comments on the conduct and calibre of judicial officers in a judgment, as such comments prejudice their careers. On December 22, 2023, Justice Bansal had set aside an order of a special NDPS judge who had issued a warrant against a deputy commissioner of police and sought his presence 'for not making sincere efforts' in expeditiously receiving a Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) report in a case. The NDPS judge had also ordered the presence of the investigating officer, the station house officer (SHO), the assistant commissioner of police (ACP), and the DCP. While quashing the NDPS judge's order, Justice Bansal had observed, 'It is unfathomable that despite a detailed judgment having been passed, similar orders are continued to being passed by the same judge. In my considered view, this appears to be a complete breach of judicial discipline that a sessions judge continues to pass orders in the teeth of a detailed judgment passed by this court, expunging/deleting adverse remarks made by him against senior police officials.' This observation now stands expunged from the order. Justice Bansal had also observed, 'As noted above, the same judge has been repeatedly passing orders that are in teeth of a detailed judgment by a Coordinate Bench. Hence, it is deemed appropriate that a copy of this judgment be sent to the Inspection Committee of this Court in respect of the said Judge .' This too stands expunged.
