'Cannot call anybody by that name': HC directs ex-finance secretary to mute podcast remarks against BJP MP Nishikant Dubey
NEW DELHI: The Delhi high court on Tuesday directed former finance secretary Subhash Chandra Garg to block or mute certain allegedly objectionable remarks he made about BJP MP Nishikant Dubey on a podcast.
Justice Tushar Rao Gedela noted that both Dubey and Garg were “persons of repute” and stressed that the former finance secretary should not have used an “intemperate word” during a YouTube podcast.
“You cannot use a word like this. Suppose someone said ...(that to you), will you take that lightly? You cannot use the word. It is absolutely derogatory. You cannot call anybody by that name. Rest of the things, it is a debatable issue,” Justice Gedela orally observed during the hearing.
Following instructions from Garg, his counsel assured the court that the retired bureaucrat would contact the podcast host to have the alleged defamatory phrases muted.
However, Garg’s counsel argued that an interim injunction was unwarranted in the absence of any “aggravating circumstances”, particularly as more than a month had passed since the podcast’s release. Dubey had sought the injunction, alleging that Garg made false and malicious remarks against him during a podcast on September 17, which was subsequently published and circulated on YouTube, Facebook and other digital platforms.
Before moving the Delhi high court, Dubey had issued a legal notice to Garg on September 21, demanding the immediate withdrawal and retraction of the alleged defamatory remarks , along with their removal from digital platforms.
Trinamool Congress MP Mahua Moitra’s counsel also assured the court that she would remove certain related posts on X that were alleged to be defamatory.
However, the lawyer maintained that Moitra would retain her right to speak on the broader issue raised in her posts.
The judge issued summons to Garg and Moitra in connection with Dubey’s defamation suit, which seeks permanent and mandatory injunctions restraining them from making further allegedly defamatory remarks against him, an apology and damages of Rs 2 crore.
The court also directed them to file their replies.
(With PTI inputs)
Justice Tushar Rao Gedela noted that both Dubey and Garg were “persons of repute” and stressed that the former finance secretary should not have used an “intemperate word” during a YouTube podcast.
“You cannot use a word like this. Suppose someone said ...(that to you), will you take that lightly? You cannot use the word. It is absolutely derogatory. You cannot call anybody by that name. Rest of the things, it is a debatable issue,” Justice Gedela orally observed during the hearing.
Following instructions from Garg, his counsel assured the court that the retired bureaucrat would contact the podcast host to have the alleged defamatory phrases muted.
However, Garg’s counsel argued that an interim injunction was unwarranted in the absence of any “aggravating circumstances”, particularly as more than a month had passed since the podcast’s release. Dubey had sought the injunction, alleging that Garg made false and malicious remarks against him during a podcast on September 17, which was subsequently published and circulated on YouTube, Facebook and other digital platforms.
Before moving the Delhi high court, Dubey had issued a legal notice to Garg on September 21, demanding the immediate withdrawal and retraction of the alleged defamatory remarks , along with their removal from digital platforms.
Trinamool Congress MP Mahua Moitra’s counsel also assured the court that she would remove certain related posts on X that were alleged to be defamatory.
However, the lawyer maintained that Moitra would retain her right to speak on the broader issue raised in her posts.
The judge issued summons to Garg and Moitra in connection with Dubey’s defamation suit, which seeks permanent and mandatory injunctions restraining them from making further allegedly defamatory remarks against him, an apology and damages of Rs 2 crore.
The court also directed them to file their replies.
(With PTI inputs)
Next Story