The latest development in the political realm comes as Trinamool Congress leader Mahua Moitra has made a significant legal pivot. In a recent hearing, Moitra's legal representative conveyed to the Delhi High Court that they would no longer pursue the defamation lawsuit previously filed against various media houses and social media platforms.

This strategic withdrawal was acknowledged by the bench led by Justice Sachin Datta, who subsequently directed Moitra's counsel, Samudra Sarangi, to submit an updated memo of parties. The case is set to be revisited on December 5, 2023, signaling a pause in the legal proceedings.

This move by Moitra could be interpreted in several ways: as a tactical retreat, a change in legal strategy, or perhaps an acknowledgment of the complex nature of defamation suits in the digital age. Whatever the reason, it certainly marks a new chapter in the ongoing narrative of India's vibrant and often contentious political discourse.

In the courtroom, a stage where drama and law often intertwine, Advocate Sidhant Kumar, representing a media house, played his part with a well-timed interjection. With the poise of a seasoned actor, he put forth a simple request: if the plaintiff, the illustrious Mahua Moitra, is to gracefully exit stage left from the legal spotlight against the media, then let's have the script—the suit—amended to reflect her latest performance.

'Mahua Case: Process, Precedent' : Well explained by PDT Achary Sir

The court's halls, no stranger to the ebb and flow of political theater, had previously witnessed the adjournment of Moitra's defamation plea—a scene set for a later date, October 31, 2023. This next act was highly anticipated, with the audience expecting a riveting continuation of the clash between Moitra and Nishikant Dubey.

Adding to the plot, Nishikant Dubey's legal maestro, Abhimanyu Bhandari, had previously introduced a twist, claiming the existence of an affidavit. This document, seemingly more explosive than any courtroom thriller's surprise evidence, alleged that a businessman had bestowed upon Moitra expensive gifts—gifts presumably not found in your everyday flea market.

The stage is thus set for a legal dramedy, with Moitra's latest move suggesting a strategic retreat or perhaps a cliffhanger, leaving the audience to wonder: will there be a sequel, or is this the final curtain call on this particular legal saga?

As the curtain rises on the next hearing, one thing is for certain: in the grand theater of politics and law, there's never a dull moment. 

Senior Advocate Gopal Sankarnaryan, donning the legal cape of heroism, sought to shield his client, the distinguished Mahua Moitra, with the armor of an ad interim injunction. “She’s a public figure with standing in the society…," he declared, painting an image of Moitra not just as a lawmaker but as a veritable pillar of the community—only to be interrupted by a narrative twist involving a once-friend, now-foe, Adv Jai Anant Dehradrai.

In a scene reminiscent of a legal telenovela, Dehradrai, representing himself with the flair of a seasoned soliloquist, dropped a bombshell. The night before had seen more than just legal briefs exchanged; there was talk of a dog, a CBI complaint, and whispered deals that could rival any prime-time plotline.

With the gravitas of a Shakespearean aside, Dehradrai disclosed the peculiar barter proposed: his CBI complaint for a canine companion. The courtroom, no doubt, must have rippled with murmurs at this revelation.

And then, in a move as unexpected as a plot twist in an Agatha Christie novel, Sankarnaryan withdrew from the case, leaving onlookers to wonder if this was a tactical retreat or a surrender. The stage was left in a state of suspense, the audience—both legal and laymen—awaiting the next act with bated breath.

Outside the courthouse, a scene usually reserved for the press's hustle and the bustle of reporters, Gopal Sankarnaryan emerged, not with a soliloquy but with a brief statement that held more than it told. "I have absolutely no comments except to say, because Jai (Advocate Jai Anant Dehadrai) instructed me in a case, I had reached out to him yesterday and had asked him if there was any way of exploring a settlement. Jai had said that he would get back to me, but he didn’t. Today when I appeared, Jai personally said to me he had an objection to my appearance. I immediately withdrew and said that I don’t want to do this case.”

His words, measured and delivered with the restraint of a man well-versed in the art of legal drama, left a trail of questions hanging in the air like the proverbial elephant in the room. It was a withdrawal not with a bang, but a professional whimper, as if to say, "In this theater of the absurd, I shall bow out gracefully."

Meanwhile, the Delhi High Court had previously shone the judicial spotlight on the defendants in Moitra's suit, issuing notices that no doubt resonated through the chambers of justice like a clarion call. At the heart of this maelstrom stands Moitra, whose position in the eye of the political storm is as central as it is stormy, following allegations by BJP MP Nishikant Dubey. Dubey's complaint to Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla painted a picture of parliamentary bribery, accusations that one imagines being delivered with the flourish of a prosecutor in a Perry Mason episode.

The narrative could rival any courtroom drama, replete with political intrigue, legal strategy, and the high stakes of public perception. As the players take their positions and the audience leans in, one can only anticipate the next turn in this serpentine saga of politics, legality, and the ever-present media, waiting to broadcast the next installment of what could very well be titled, "The Chronicles of Moitra."

Not long ago, the political corridors of Parliament were abuzz with the echoes of Nishikant Dubey's letter to the Lok Sabha Speaker, a letter that resurrected the ghost of the 'Cash for Query' scandal. The document, ominously titled, alleged a "serious Breach of Privilege," "Contempt of the House," and even went so far as to suggest a "Criminal Offence" under Section 120A of the IPC by the Trinamool Congress MP.

The plot thickened as Dubey put forth claims that he was in possession of proof, courtesy of Advocate Jai Anant Dehadrai, that substantiated the allegations of bribery. This revelation cast a shadow over the hallowed parliamentary proceedings and promised to stir up a storm of controversy.

In a deft counter, the TMC MP responded with a stance that was as strategic as it was bold. She openly welcomed the Speaker's probe into the matter, with a caveat that turned the tables on her accusers. Her riposte was clear: she would face the inquiry, provided the Speaker first tackled the alleged breaches of privilege by members of the BJP.

This recent chapter of political intrigue has since unfolded, with the repercussions and reverberations of the allegations still lingering in the air. The TMC MP's response, a blend of challenge and compliance, remains a testament to the high-stakes game of accountability and reprisal in the political arena.