As the legal battle between BJP MP Nishikant Dubey and
TMC MP Mahua Moitra reached the Delhi High Court, the hearing took an
unexpected turn when senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, who was
representing Moitra, withdrew from the case on Friday.
The senior advocate took the decision after advocate
Jai Anant Dehadrai complained to the High Court that Sankaranarayanan contacted
him to withdraw his CBI complaint against Moitra on the night of Thursday.
Allegedly, Sankaranarayanan asked Dehadrai to do so in
lieu of taking custody of a dog – Henry – which has been a subject of dispute
between the former couple.
Hearing this, the High Court remarked it was
“appalled” and questioned Sankaranarayanan if he was still eligible to appear
in this case as he “played the role of a mediator”.
“It’s something that you (Sankaranarayanan) need to
answer yourself,” the High Court remarked, prompting Sankaranarayanan to
withdraw himself from the case. The high court then posted the case for further
hearing on October 31.
Responding to this, Sankaranarayanan clarified that he
approached Dehadrai as they had worked together in the past. Sankaranarayanan
said he had requested Moitra to let him discuss the matter with Dehadrai, to
which she consented.
Moitra is at the centre of a political storm after
Bharatiya Janata Party MP Nishikant Dubey complained to Lok Sabha Speaker Om
Birla on Sunday that she had allegedly taken bribes from a business house to
ask questions in Parliament.
In his complaint to the Lok Sabha Speaker on October
15, Dubey, cited a letter from Dehadrai to accuse Moitra of “breach of
privilege, contempt of the house, and criminal offence”.
However, in her plea before the high court, Moitra has
sought an order directing Dubey and Dehadrai to publish a retraction and an
apology to the plaintiff in three English newspapers, three Hindi newspapers
and three Bengali newspapers for the false and defamatory statements or
allegations made by them against her.
Moitra said Dehadrai was her close friend until
recently when the cessation of this friendship soon took a bitter turn, and he
“resorted to sending vile, threatening, vulgar messages to the plaintiff and
also trespassed into plaintiff’s official residence and stole some personal
possessions of the plaintiff including her pet dog – Henry (the same was
returned later)”.
Agencies
