In a notable legal development, the Delhi High Court reaffirmed its previous decision in a defamation case involving Member of Parliament Saket Gokhale and former diplomat Lakshmi Murdeshwar Puri. The court had earlier ordered Gokhale to pay ₹50 lakh in damages and issue a public apology for defamatory statements made against Puri. Recently, Gokhale sought to settle the matter without payment, citing financial constraints, but Puri declined the offer, emphasizing the importance of accountability and justice.
Background of the Defamation Case
In June 2021, Saket Gokhale posted a series of tweets questioning the financial propriety of Lakshmi Puri's purchase of an apartment in Geneva, Switzerland. He insinuated that the acquisition, valued at CHF 1.6 million, was beyond the means of Puri and her husband, Union Minister Hardeep Singh Puri. Gokhale's allegations suggested potential financial impropriety and called for an investigation by the Enforcement Directorate.
Lakshmi Puri responded by filing a defamation suit, asserting that Gokhale's claims were baseless and damaging to her reputation. She provided documentation to demonstrate that the apartment was purchased in 2005, with CHF 1 million financed through a mortgage from UBS Bank and the remaining CHF 600,000 contributed by her daughter, a senior executive at an international investment bank. Additionally, Puri had duly informed the Ministry of External Affairs about the property acquisition at the time.
Delhi High Court's Initial Ruling
On July 1, 2024, the Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Lakshmi Puri. Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani found that Gokhale's tweets were "evidently incorrect, false, and untrue." The court emphasized that allegations of financial impropriety, especially against individuals associated with public office, can severely tarnish reputations and have lasting impacts.
The court ordered Gokhale to:
-
Pay ₹50 lakh in damages to Lakshmi Puri.
-
Issue an unconditional public apology on his X (formerly Twitter) handle, to remain visible for six months.
-
Publish the apology prominently in a national daily newspaper.
-
Refrain from making any further defamatory statements against Puri on any platform.
Justice Bhambhani noted that Gokhale's actions appeared to target Puri's husband, a serving Union Minister, and that his conduct lacked responsibility and remorse, even after being cautioned about the falsity of his claims.
Gokhale's Attempt to Settle and Puri's Rejection
In April 2025, during proceedings before the Delhi High Court, Gokhale sought to settle the matter without making the ₹50 lakh payment, citing financial difficulties. His counsel argued for a "liberal approach," stating that Gokhale lacked the funds to comply with the court's order and proposed a settlement without any monetary compensation.
However, Puri's legal representative, Senior Advocate Maninder Singh, firmly rejected the offer. Singh emphasized that the court's previous judgment was clear and that Gokhale's attempt to evade financial responsibility undermined the principles of justice and accountability.
Gokhale's Application for Recall of Ex Parte Order
Gokhale also filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Civil Procedure Code, seeking to recall the ex parte order issued on July 1, 2024. He claimed that his previous counsel had ceased representation without informing him, leading to his non-appearance in court. Gokhale argued that he was unaware of the proceedings due to his involvement in multiple legal cases across different jurisdictions and his inability to afford legal representation.
Despite these claims, the court noted that Gokhale had not taken timely steps to address the matter and that his explanations did not justify the delay in seeking relief.
Legal and Social Implications
This case underscores the importance of responsible communication, especially by public figures. The court's decision reinforces that individuals cannot make unfounded allegations without facing consequences. It also highlights the judiciary's role in protecting reputations and ensuring that justice is served, regardless of the parties' social or political standing.
For public discourse to remain constructive and fair, it is essential that individuals verify information before making public statements, particularly when such statements can cause significant harm to others' reputations.
Conclusion
The Delhi High Court's reaffirmation of its defamation ruling against Saket Gokhale and Lakshmi Puri's refusal to accept a settlement without compensation highlight the judiciary's commitment to upholding justice and accountability. This case serves as a reminder of the responsibilities that come with freedom of expression and the potential legal repercussions of disseminating false information.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.