During the defamation suit hearing at the Delhi High Court involving Trinamool Congress (TMC) MP Mahua Moitra and Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) MP Nishikant Dubey, an incident of high drama occurred on Friday. Lawyer Jai Anant Dehadrai made a public statement in court, asserting that Gopal Sankaranarayanan, the attorney representing Mahua Moitra, had reached out to him on Thursday, urging him to withdraw the complaint against Moitra. Dehadrai also stated that he possesses a recording of this conversation and suggested that Sankaranarayanan should not be allowed to participate in the case.

"There is a deeply troubling situation here. It raises a significant conflict of interest. He had a 30-minute conversation with me during which he requested that I withdraw the CBI complaint in exchange for the dog. Therefore, he should not be allowed to represent in this case, as I have a recording of this conversation," stated Dehadrai.

Sankaranarayanan acknowledged that he had, in fact, reached out to Dehadrai. He explained that his reason for doing so was because he had previous interactions with Dehadrai when the latter had briefed him for various legal matters.

Justice Sachin Datta expressed strong concern over the allegation and suggested that there might indeed be a conflict of interest in Gopal Sankaranarayanan representing Moitra in this case. The judge remarked, "I am genuinely shocked by this allegation. As a legal professional, you are held to the highest ethical standards. If you have been in communication with Defendant No. 2, it implies you may have acted as a mediator. Do you believe you can continue to represent in this case?"

In response to the concerns raised by Justice Sachin Datta, Gopal Sankaranarayanan decided to withdraw from the case.

Mahua Moitra has filed a case in the court against Nishikant Dubey, Jai Anant Dehadrai, and several media platforms. In her case, she is seeking court orders to have the allegedly defamatory allegations removed. These allegations claim that she asked questions in parliament regarding the Adani Group in exchange for money from businessman Darshan Hiranandani.

In the previous hearing that took place on Tuesday, the court had issued summonses related to the suit and notices to all the respondents in response to Moitra's request for interim relief.

In the midst of these legal proceedings, a signed statement from Darshan Hiranandani came to light in the media on Thursday. In this statement, Hiranandani supported Jai Anant Dehadrai's claims and admitted to using Mahua Moitra's parliamentary login to draft and submit questions in parliament that targeted the Adani Group. He further stated that he did not wish to upset Moitra and, as a result, he performed various favors for her. These favors included giving her costly luxury items and assisting in the renovation of her official residence in Delhi.

In reaction to the emerging signed statement from Darshan Hiranandani, Mahua Moitra released a statement raising questions about the authenticity of the affidavit. She pointed out that the affidavit was issued on plain white paper without any official letterhead or notarization, which raised concerns about its credibility. Moitra further questioned why a well-respected and educated businessman in India like Hiranandani would sign such a document on plain white paper unless he was under some form of duress or pressure. She emphasized that Hiranandani had not been summoned by investigative agencies like the CBI or the Ethics committee, which raised doubts about the circumstances surrounding the issuance of the affidavit.

Mahua Moitra made additional allegations regarding the affidavit, suggesting that it had been crafted by someone with a political bias. She claimed that the affidavit appeared to have been drafted by an individual associated with the Prime Minister's Office (PMO) who also had a role in the BJP's IT cell. Moitra alleged that the document praised Narendra Modi and Gautam Adani while attempting to link every opponent of theirs to her and her supposed corruption.

Furthermore, Moitra refuted the claims that Darshan Hiranandani had yielded to her requests out of fear of displeasing her, implying that there were ulterior motives behind the contents of the affidavit.

The court has scheduled the case for the next hearing on October 31st.