Srinagar, Oct 02: Two defendants have been deleted from a defamation suit filed by former Jammu and Kashmir Chief Secretary Arun Kumar Mehta after the plaintiff told the Delhi High Court that they had published apologies over the article in question, while three other defendants, including The Wire, continue to contest the case.
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 submitted that Defendant Nos. 3 and 5 had “already realized their mistake” and published apologies in relation to the article. Mehta, who was present in person, also confirmed that he no longer wished to pursue the proceedings against them.
The court consequently ordered that Defendant Nos. 3 and 5 be deleted from the array of parties and directed the filing of an amended memo of parties.
The development leaves Ashok Kumar Ranchhodbhai Parmar, The Wire and The Kashmiriyat as the remaining defendants in the proceedings.
The September 30 order, however, does not adjudicate on the truth or falsity of the allegations contained in the publications. Nor does it record a finding that the allegations were defamatory. The deletion of the two defendants followed the plaintiff’s decision to discontinue the proceedings against them after their apologies were placed on record.
The court also dealt with applications filed by Defendant Nos. 1, 2 and 4 seeking condonation of delay in filing their written statements.
Mehta’s counsel told the court that although the written statements had been filed belatedly, the plaintiff would have no objection to their being taken on record since 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, imposing costs of ₹10,000 each on the three defendants, payable to the plaintiff within four weeks.
The pleadings of Defendant No. 1, Ashok Kumar Ranchhodbhai Parmar, contain repeated denials that he defamed Mehta or played any role in the media publications that are the subject of the suit.
According to the written-statement material supplied for the proceedings, Parmar has denied that his letters were defamatory and has put the plaintiff to strict proof of any alleged defamation or injury attributable to him. He has also denied making false or malicious allegations and said he did not broadcast or proliferate the material through media or social-media platforms.
Parmar has further denied leaking or supplying complaint letters to media organisations, including The Kashmiriyat, The Tribune, The Hindu and The Wire, and has said that any media access to the material was not attributable to him. He has also denied initiating any defamatory campaign, leaking documents or republishing defamatory material.
The written statement also contains specific denials concerning publications in The Wire and Kashmir Life, with Parmar stating that he had no role in their publication, framing or content and had no communication or influence with the media defendants.
In relation to another The Wire article, the pleading denies any collusion or role with the author and says there was no prompting, supply of material or influence.
The defence repeatedly states that Parmar’s communications were confined to official complaints and tribunal filings and did not constitute defamation. It also describes the communications as bona fide official reporting and denies responsibility for third-party media content.
In its later portions, the written statement contains broader denials covering the publications of Defendants Nos. 2 to 5. Parmar is stated to have denied authoring, contributing to, prompting, supplying or coordinating with the media outlets and to have denied any direct or indirect role in posting, sharing, amplification, dissemination, republication or narrative framing by them.
The defence also expressly denies any “defamatory crusade” or collusion with the media defendants and says Parmar had no involvement, direct or indirect, with the media platforms.
Under the grounds headed “No Defamation”, the written statement says: “No defamation occurred. Statements were truthful, good-faith disclosures to authorities.” It also denies any role in media publications and states that no defamatory material was published by Defendant No. 1.
A separate sur-rejoinder filed by Parmar also reiterates his denial of having alleged personal enrichment by Mehta or having caused any media publication.
The document identifies as a “central theme” Parmar’s position that he had never alleged personal enrichment, a bank trail or a proxy asset of the plaintiff. It further states that he never made or caused publication of an allegation that Mehta had personally enriched himself through abuse of office.
The sur-rejoinder also says there was no reference to Mehta by name in certain social-media posts and therefore, according to Parmar’s defence, no identifiable person and no defamation. It repeatedly denies any media publication by him and says there is no document showing that he published the material in the media.
Parmar further disputes any continuing defamation or reputational harm attributable to him and asserts that there was no media leakage from his side. The same position is repeated in his supporting affidavit, where he states that he had never alleged personal enrichment of Mehta and had never leaked any communication to the media.
These are pleaded positions of Defendant No. 1, rather than findings by the High Court. The court’s September 30 order did not decide the merits of those claims.
The plaintiff’s side has nevertheless indicated that the litigation could end against the remaining defendants if they adopt a position similar to that of the two defendants who have apologised.
“Learned counsel for plaintiff also submits that if similar kind of apology is given by other defendants, plaintiff would withdraw his case,” the High Court order records. Defendant No. 4 sought time to consider the proposal.
Advocate Vasudev Sharan Swain, representing Mehta, said the plaintiff would continue to pursue the proceedings against those defendants 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.
The court order itself does not say that The Wire has been directed to face a trial, nor does it determine that the publications were false or defamatory. It records that The Wire remains a defendant and that its written statement has been taken on record.
The plaintiff has also called for corrections by media platforms that carried the allegations, with Swain arguing that any correction should receive prominence 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 accompanying material submitted on behalf of Mehta says the suit concerns publications carrying allegations relating to corruption, abuse of office and alleged public wrongdoing. Those assertions form part of the plaintiff’s case and have not been adjudicated upon in the September 30 order.
With the two defendants now out of the proceedings, the contest continues between Mehta and Defendant Nos. 1, 2 and 4. Their written statements are on record, and their respective positions will be considered as the suit progresses.
The matter has been listed before the Delhi High Court for further consideration on December 15, 2026.
