Mahua Moitra and Subhash Garg agree to remove defamatory content against Nishikant Dubey

KanoonHQ Legal Gazette · AI-generated brief from the source linked below. How briefs are made

Published 27 October 2026

Case: Nishikant Dubey v. Subhash Garg and Mahua Moitra
Court: High Court of Delhi
Bench: Justice Tushar Rao Gedela
Source: Verdictum

Bottom Line Up Front (BLUF)

In Nishikant Dubey v. Subhash Garg and Mahua Moitra, the Delhi High Court (Justice Tushar Rao Gedela) directed former finance secretary Subhash Garg to block or mute objectionable remarks against BJP MP Nishikant Dubey on a podcast. TMC MP Mahua Moitra's counsel also assured the court that she would remove related allegedly defamatory posts on 'X'. The court issued summons in the defamation lawsuit.

Ratio Decidendi · Legal Principle Established

The court's oral observations indicated that using derogatory and intemperate language against an individual, particularly a person of repute, is unacceptable and can form the basis for a defamation claim, leading to directions for removal of such content.

Practice & Procedural Impact for Advocates

Advocates should advise clients to promptly remove or modify allegedly defamatory content upon receiving notice of a lawsuit to demonstrate good faith. Litigants should be prepared for courts to issue directions for interim restraint on dissemination of content, even before a full response is filed. Counsel must confirm the specific provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, that apply to interim injunctions and summons.

Key Legal Takeaways

1Courts may issue directions for interim removal or modification of allegedly defamatory content.
2Using 'intemperate' or 'derogatory' language against public figures can lead to defamation proceedings.
3Defendants may be asked to restrain further dissemination of content during the pendency of a defamation suit.

The Legal Issue BJP MP Nishikant Dubey filed a defamation lawsuit against former finance secretary Subhash Garg and TMC MP Mahua Moitra, seeking a permanent and mandatory injunction to prevent them from making disparaging remarks against him. The lawsuit also sought an apology and damages of Rs 2 crore. The core of the dispute involved allegedly objectionable remarks made by Subhash Garg on a podcast and related defamatory posts by Mahua Moitra on 'X'.

Court's Reasoning The Delhi High Court, presided over by Justice Tushar Rao Gedela, heard the matter. The court orally observed that using 'intemperate' and 'derogatory' words against any individual, especially persons of repute, is unacceptable. The court questioned whether such language would be taken lightly if directed at the defendants themselves. While the defendants' counsel sought time to file a response, the court inquired if they could restrain themselves from further disseminating the content in the interim. Following this, Subhash Garg's counsel assured the court that steps would be taken to contact the podcast host to mute or block the objectionable remarks. Similarly, Mahua Moitra's counsel assured the court that she would remove the allegedly defamatory posts on 'X'.

What Follows The Delhi High Court issued summons to Subhash Garg and Mahua Moitra in the defamation lawsuit. They have been asked to file their replies to the suit. Subhash Garg's counsel will contact the podcast host to mute or block the objectionable remarks, and Mahua Moitra's counsel will ensure the removal of the specified posts on 'X'. The proceedings will continue with the filing of responses by the defendants.