Srinagar, Oct 02: The Delhi High Court has deleted two defendants from a defamation suit filed by former Jammu and Kashmir Chief Secretary Arun Kumar Mehta after the plaintiff told the court that they had “realized their mistake” and published apologies over the article at the centre of the dispute.
In an order passed on September 30 in CS(OS) 859/2025, Arun Kumar Mehta v. Ashok Kumar Ranchhodbhai Parmar & Ors., Justice Manoj Jain recorded that counsel for Mehta had submitted that Defendant Nos. 3 and 5 had published apologies and that the plaintiff was no longer interested in pursuing the proceedings against them.
Mehta, who was present in person, also stated the same. The court consequently ordered that the names of Defendant Nos. 3 and 5 be deleted from the array of parties and directed that an amended memo of parties be filed.
The order does not adjudicate on the allegations contained in the publication or record any finding that they were false or defamatory. The deletion of the two defendants followed the plaintiff’s decision not to pursue the suit against them after their apologies were placed on record.
The proceedings, however, continue against Defendant Nos. 1, 2 and 4, Ashok Kumar Ranchhodbhai Parmar, The Wire and The Kashmiriyat.
The court also allowed applications filed by these three defendants seeking condonation of delay in filing their written statements. Mehta’s counsel told the court that although the statements had been filed belatedly, he had no objection to their being taken on record as they were within the outer permissible limit of 120 days, subject to costs.
The court accepted the concession and directed that the written statements be taken on record, while imposing costs of ₹10,000 on each of the three defendants. The amount is to be paid to the plaintiff within four weeks.
The plaintiff’s side has maintained that the publications contained serious allegations against Mehta and has indicated that the remaining proceedings will centre on the defendants’ respective stands in the suit.
According to the plaintiff’s accompanying statement, Advocate Vasudev Sharan Swain said the apologies tendered by two defendants represented a significant development in the case and that the plaintiff would continue the proceedings against those who chose to contest the allegations.
“The apologies are not a courtesy. They are an admission. Those who repeated the allegations have now accepted they were wrong. The Wire, the original publisher that was quoted by other platforms, cannot hide behind others. It remains a contesting defendant and will now face trial on the merits. We will pursue this to the end,” Swain said.
However, the September 30 order itself does not state that The Wire has been directed to face a trial or that the court has determined the publication to be false. It records that Defendant No. 2 remains a party to the suit and that its written statement has been taken on record.
The plaintiff’s side has also left open the possibility of ending the proceedings against the remaining defendants if they tender apologies similar to those submitted by Defendant Nos. 3 and 5.
“Learned counsel for plaintiff also submits that if similar kind of apology is given by other defendants, plaintiff would withdraw his case,” the order records. Defendant No. 4 sought time to consider the proposal.
The plaintiff has separately called for corrections by media platforms that carried the allegations, with his counsel arguing that any correction should receive visibility comparable to that given to the original publication.
“You cannot destroy a reputation with a headline and then bury the apology in a footnote. The damage must be undone. The truth must be published as loudly as the lie,” Swain said.
The plaintiff’s accompanying statement further says that Mehta’s case concerns allegations relating to corruption, abuse of office and alleged public wrongdoing. These are allegations forming part of the plaintiff’s case; the High Court’s September 30 order does not make findings on their truth or falsity.
The court has listed the matter for further consideration on December 15, 2026.
