Delhi High Court orders attachment of TMC MP Saket Gokhale’s salary over unpaid defamation damages

New Delhi, Apr 24: The Delhi High Court on Thursday directed the partial attachment of Trinamool Congress (TMC) MP Saket Gokhale’s salary, citing his failure to comply with a July 2024 court order requiring him to pay Rs 50 lakh in defamation damages and issue a public apology to former diplomat Lakshmi Puri. According to a report by Bar & Bench, the court observed that Gokhale had not tendered an apology or deposited the decreed amount, despite the absence of any stay on the earlier order.

Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, who passed the latest order, said, “No reasonable explanation has been given for not depositing the decretal amount. Accordingly, issue warrants of attachment as per Section 60(i) CPC with respect to salary which is stated to be Rs 1.9 lakhs per month. The salary shall remain attached until a sum of Rs 50 lakhs is deposited in this Court,” as quoted by Bar & Bench.

The salary attachment has been made under Section 60(i) of the Code of Civil Procedure, which allows for attachment of salary beyond Rs 1,000 and two-thirds of the remaining amount to satisfy a court decree. Lakshmi Puri, a former Indian diplomat and wife of Union Petroleum Minister Hardeep Singh Puri, had filed a defamation suit in 2021 against Gokhale. She alleged that he had made false and malicious allegations through posts on X (formerly Twitter), claiming she had purchased a property in Switzerland disproportionate to her declared assets.

In a judgment delivered on July 1, 2024, the High Court ruled that Gokhale had made “incorrect, false and untrue” allegations and ordered him to: Pay Rs 50 lakh in damages and issue a public apology in a newspaper and on his X handle. Despite the verdict, Gokhale has neither apologised nor paid the amount, prompting Puri to approach the court for execution of the decree. During Thursday’s hearing, Gokhale’s counsel, Advocate Varun, informed the court that his client had filed a plea seeking to recall the July 2024 judgment and that the matter had been reserved for orders. He argued that compliance with the decree would render the recall application “infructuous.”

Senior Advocate Maninder Singh, appearing for Puri, strongly opposed this line of reasoning, asserting, “They have to comply with the decree. There is no stay.” Justice Arora noted the non-compliance and moved to enforce the decree through salary attachment. The matter is now scheduled for further hearing on May 28.