New Delhi: TMC MP Mahua Moitra may have ended her friendship with advocate Jai Anant Dehadrai and gotten married to former BJD MP Pinaki Misra, but some unfinished business remains—a custody battle over ‘Henry’.
The dramatic tussle over the pet dog, a Rottweiler, has gotten even more so, with Dehadrai moving the Delhi High Court claiming that a trial court’s “gag order” in the matter has impacted his right to free speech.
The case before the trial court in Saket originated from Moitra’s plea seeking custody of the dog, which Dehadrai claimed, was purchased by him in 2021.
Moitra’s friendship with Dehadrai, who she once appeared to refer as a “jilted ex”, ended acrimoniously and made headlines during the ‘cash-for-query’ controversy that eventually led to her disqualification as a Member of Parliament in December 2023. BJP MP Nishikant Dubey, who was the complainant in the case, based his charges on “irrefutable evidence” shared by Dehadrai.
Moitra, who had denied the allegations, remained disqualified for the remainder of the term, but is now back as MP after winning in the 2024 Lok Sabha election.
In May, she married Misra at a private ceremony in Germany.
Dehadrai’s plea before the HC argues that Moitra has made a “bizarre” contention that owing to their “friendship” at the time when Henry was bought, she was entitled to joint custody of the pet dog.
On Wednesday, the Delhi High Court issued a notice to Moitra on Dehadrai’s plea. A single-judge bench of Justice Manoj Jain also orally asked the parties if they were willing to sit together and sort out the issue. The matter will be taken up next on 22 December.
“Embarrassed by the fact that she has filed a ridiculous suit for custody to snatch my pet dog Henry from me, she obtained an ex-parte (passed in the absence of the opposing party or their lawyer) gag order against me behind my back from a trial court,” Dehadrai told ThePrint.
ThePrint reached Mahua Moitra for comment through calls and WhatsApp messages. This article will be updated if and when she responds.
Also Read: In aftermath of Delhi HC judge row, Mahua accuses Centre of laying ground to scrap Collegium system
Trial court order
In March, the Saket district court passed an ex-parte order that forbade both parties from talking about the case.
Dehadrai said that on the very first day of the hearing on Mahua’s plea before the trial court, the MP managed to secure the order which said they cannot disclose to anyone in the public that this case exists. He claimed the order was passed without him getting a notice or advance copy.
The order, Dehadrai said, also prevented the media from reporting about this case. He termed the 6 March direction “erroneous, unreasoned, arbitrary, unreasonable, unconstitutional, and wholly perverse”.
According to his plea, the order, without offering any reasons, effectively imposed a sweeping gag order by saying, “Both the parties to the Suit are directed to ensure that the present proceedings shall not be publicized in any form.”
Dehadrai referred to the Supreme Court’s 2025 ruling in the Wikimedia vs ANI case, where it said that the court’s duty is not to tell the media to take down or delete content given that both the judiciary and the media are pillars of democracy.
In the ruling, the court had also said, “Every important issue needs to be vigorously debated by the people and the press, even if the issue of debate is sub judice before a court”.
Dehadrai claimed Mahua was “perhaps embarrassed” by the potential public repercussions of filing a suit for a pet dog’s custody, and thus, sought the gag order in his absence.
Nearly a month after the order, the trial court went a step forward in April and passed another ad-interim injunction, directing Dehadrai to remove his post on X in which he wrote about the case.
Dehradai refuted that he posted details of the case on X, but said he took down the post due to the court order.
Dehadrai first approached the trial court to vacate or set aside the gag order and the temporary injunction passed in the case, but days later, withdrew it and approached the HC instead.
How courts view gag orders
Citing the SC’s 2021 ruling in Chief Election Commissioner of India vs MR Vijaybhaskar case, the lawyer also argued that citizens have a right to information related to court proceedings, barring the in-camera ones.
The rights of the media to report and disseminate issues and events, including court proceedings which fall under the public domain, augments the judiciary’s integrity and the cause of justice, he argued.
Dehadrai also relied on the Delhi HC’s 2024 ruling in Ajay Kumar’s case where a gag order was sought against newspapers like Dainik Jagran and Hindustan Times, but instead the court imposed Rs 10,000 cost on the party seeking such an order.
“It is well settled that gag orders should be passed only when it is necessary and to prevent substantial risk to fairness of a trial,” the court had said.
Usually, such gag orders are passed in matters before family courts, or in cases concerning crimes against women, or even a matter of national security or sovereignty, Dehadrai contended.
(Edited by Ajeet Tiwari)
Also Read: On BJP worker’s complaint, Chhattisgarh cops book TMC’s Mahua Moitra over remarks on Amit Shah
Mahua Moitra is the perfect representation of the modern Westernised woman. No wonder media organisations such as The Print love her so much.