Kashmir Impulse Desk
Srinagar, Oct 2
The Delhi High Court has recorded apologies published by two media outlets in a Rs 2.55-crore defamation suit filed by former Jammu and Kashmir Chief Secretary Arun Kumar Mehta, who has agreed to drop proceedings against them.
Justice Manoj Jain, hearing Mehta’s suit against senior IAS officer Ashok Kumar Ranchhodbai Parmar and four media organisations, on September 30 ordered the deletion of the two outlets from the list of defendants after being informed that they had acknowledged their mistake and published apologies over the disputed article.
Mehta’s counsel, Vikas Mehta and Vasudev Sharan Swain, told the court that Defendant Nos 3 and 5 had published apologies. Mehta, in view of the apologies, did not wish to pursue the proceedings against them and had no objection to their removal from the case.
The court accepted the submissions and directed the filing of an amended memo of parties.
Mehta also indicated that he would withdraw the proceedings against the remaining defendants if they tendered similar apologies. Defendant No 4 sought time to consider the proposal, following which the court listed the matter for further hearing on December 15.
The suit has been filed against Parmar and four media organisations — The Wire, Kashmir Life, The Kashmiriyat and Daily Headlines Today — over publications concerning alleged irregularities in the implementation of the Jal Jeevan Mission (JJM) in Jammu and Kashmir.
Mehta, who served as the Union Territory’s chief secretary from May 31, 2021, to November 30, 2023, has alleged that Parmar, a former principal secretary of the J&K Jal Shakti Department, initiated a campaign against him following his transfer from the department in 2022.
According to the plaint, Parmar authored and circulated complaint letters alleging corruption and irregularities in the implementation of the JJM, some of which were allegedly shared with media organisations.
Mehta has argued that information obtained under the Right to Information Act from the Central Bureau of Investigation and the National Commission for Scheduled Castes showed that the respective authorities had not received the alleged complaints.
The plaint further cites a June 25, 2025, final report of the Jammu and Kashmir Anti-Corruption Bureau, which, according to Mehta, found the allegations relating to the mission to be baseless. The report, as described in the suit, concluded that contracts had been awarded to the lowest bidders without causing losses to the state exchequer.
Mehta has alleged that the media organisations published the claims without adequate verification, causing serious damage to his reputation. He has sought Rs 2.55 crore in damages and a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from publishing or circulating material he considers false or defamatory.
Parmar, in a rejoinder filed in the proceedings, has denied allegations that Mehta personally enriched himself or caused any communication to be leaked to the media. He has described the denial as the central theme of his defence and reiterated his position in a supporting affidavit.
The High Court also allowed the written statements of Defendant Nos 1, 2 and 4 to be taken on record after condoning the delay, subject to costs of Rs 10,000 each. The court noted that the filings were within the maximum permissible period of 120 days.
The matter is scheduled to be heard again on December 15.
