Delhi High Court: The present suit was filed by the petitioner, Lakshmi Murdeshwar Puri, seeking direction to the respondent, Saket Gokhale, to take down/delete the offending tweets from public domain and sought an unconditional apology from him. A Single Judge Bench of Anish Dayal, J., after considering that the decree in Lakshmi Murdeshwar Puri v. Saket Gokhale, (2024) 4 HCC (Del) 356, was passed on 1-7-2024, wherein the respondent was directed to publish an apology, but still had not complied with the judgment/decree, held that the apology as directed by the judgment/decree dated 1-7-2024, should be tendered by the respondent within two weeks from the date of the present order.
Earlier, the Court in its order dated 23-12-2024 had noted that the respondent was directed to publish an unconditional apology on his Twitter Handle and in Times of India, in a time bound manner and the petitioner was held entitled to damages for a sum of Rs 50 lakhs.
The Court opined that the issue arose out of the alleged wilful disobedience of the judgment dated 1-7-2024, of this Court in Lakshmi Murdeshwar Puri v. Saket Gokhale, (2024) 4 HCC (Del) 356, wherein the respondent was directed to publish an apology on his own Twitter handle from which he had put out the offending tweets and also prominently in the Times of India stating that “I unconditionally apologise for having put out a series of tweets against Ambassador Lakshmi Murdeshwar Puri on 13-6-2021 and 23-6-2021, which tweets contained wrong and unverified allegations in relation to the purchase of property by Ambassador Puri abroad, which I sincerely regret.”.
The Court noted that no steps were taken by the respondent to challenge the same till recently, when he filed an application under Order IX Rule 13 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (‘CPC’) , in January 2025 and a condonation of delay application was also filed, but the same was dismissed.
Counsel for the respondent submitted that the respondent was ready to give apology in a sealed cover, which could later be published, subject to the result of the appeal, if and when they file it, within the statutory period. The Court opined that there was no reason for the Court to take the apology in a sealed cover and then wait for the result of an appeal against the dismissal of Order IX Rule 13 CPC application.
The Court, after considering that the decree was passed in July 2024, and no challenge was preferred in the statutory period, but the challenge which was finally preferred was dismissed with a detailed judgment, opined that the respondent simply tarried, lingered, and procrastinated, but still had not complied with the judgment/decree.
The Court opined that the respondent was a Parliamentarian, and a reputed member of the Society and still more than ten months had passed and till date there was no order that they had secured from the Court which would impede the compliance of the judgment/decree dated 1-7-2024. The Court rejected the proposal of placing the apology in a sealed cover and held that the apology as directed by the judgment/decree dated 1-7-2024, should be published within the next two weeks from the date of the present order.
The matter would next be listed on 12-9-2025.
[Lakshmi Murdeshwar Puri v. Saket Gokhale, Cont. Cas (C) 2029 of 2024, decided on 9-5-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Petitioner: Maninder Singh, Senior Advocate with Meghna Mishra, Palak Sharma, Shreyansh Rathi, R. Mohan and Amarpal Singh, Advocates
For the Respondent: Amarjit Singh Bedi and Harsha Vinoy, Advocates along with Respondent in-person.
