Delhi High Court Orders TMC MP Mahua Moitra and Ex-Finance Secretary Subhash Garg to Remove Defamatory Posts

In a recent ruling, the Delhi High Court has mandated TMC MP Mahua Moitra and former Finance Secretary Subhash Garg to retract their defamatory posts about BJP MP Nishikant Dubey. This legal decision follows a defamation petition filed by Dubey, leading both parties to agree to remove their controversial statements from social media. The court's firm stance has been interpreted as a significant setback for the involved politicians, highlighting the serious implications of political discourse and defamation in the digital age. Nishikant Dubey celebrated the ruling as a victory for truth on social media, emphasizing the importance of accountability in public statements.

By Narendra Chaudhary Oct 27, 2026, 15:45 IST

Court Ruling on Defamation Case

In New Delhi, a significant legal development has occurred involving BJP MP Nishikant Dubey, as the Delhi High Court has dealt a blow to TMC MP Mahua Moitra and former Finance Secretary Subhash Garg in a defamation case. Both individuals have been compelled to remove their objectionable posts regarding Nishikant Dubey from their respective social media accounts. This situation arose following a defamation petition filed in court.

During the hearing on Tuesday, Mahua Moitra's legal representative informed the court that she would retract her controversial social media comments about Nishikant Dubey. Similarly, Subhash Garg also agreed to withdraw his statements. Following the court's firm stance on the matter, both parties committed to deleting their contentious content from social media platforms.

Immediately after the court proceedings, BJP MP Nishikant Dubey took to the social media platform 'X' (formerly Twitter) to express his views, labeling the outcome as 'Satyamev Jayate.' He stated that the truth regarding the misleading statements made by both the former Finance Secretary and the TMC MP had been revealed in court, leading them to retract their unfounded remarks. This ruling is perceived as a significant setback for both leaders in the realm of political discourse and defamation cases.