The defamation battle brought by former Jammu & Kashmir Chief Secretary Dr. Arun Kumar Mehta entered a significant new phase before the Delhi High Court, after two media defendants who had published articles concerning him were deleted from the proceedings following publication of unconditional apologies. In CS(OS) 859/2025, Arun Kumar Mehta v. Ashok Kumar Ranchhodbhai Parmar & Ors., counsel for Dr. Mehta informed the Court that Defendant No. 3, Kashmir Life, and Defendant No. 5, Daily Headlines Today, had “realized their mistake” and published apologies in relation to the articles in question. Dr. Mehta, who was personally present, confirmed that he no longer wished to pursue the suit against them. The Court consequently directed that both defendants be deleted from the array of parties vide its order dated 30.09.2026.
For Dr Mehta, however, the development is not being projected as the end of the litigation. It is being treated as a turning point. The counsels appearing for the plaintiff namely Mr Vikas Mehta, Nar Hari Singh, Advocate-on-Record, and Advocate Vasudev Swain have made clear that the case will continue against those defendants who have chosen to contest it. “An apology after publication cannot erase the damage already done, but it does tell the public something important: responsible publishers, when confronted with the record, can choose to correct it,” said Adv. Vasudev Swain. “Dr. Mehta has consistently maintained that grave and reputation destroying allegations were circulated without a proper factual foundation. Those who have apologised have been given closure. Those who continue to stand by the publications will have to justify them before the Court on evidence.” said Nar Hari Singh, Advocate-on-Record.
Among those who remain are Ashok Kumar Ranchhodbhai Parmar (Defendant no. 1), The Wire (Defendant No. 2) and The Kashmiriyat (Defendant no. 4) which continues to contest the case. Dr. Mehta’s case against the remaining defendants is expected to focus closely on the source, verification, presentation and republication of the allegations concerning him. His stand is that serious accusations touching upon corruption, abuse of office and public wrongdoing were repeatedly placed into the public domain in a manner that damaged a reputation built over decades of public service.
The Court also dealt with applications filed by Defendant Nos. 1, 2 and 4 seeking condonation of delay in filing their written statements. Counsel for Dr. Mehta told the Court that although the written statements had been filed belatedly, he would not oppose their being taken on record because they fell within the outer permissible period, provided appropriate costs were imposed. The Court accepted that concession and directed that the written statements be taken on record, imposing costs of Rs 10,000 on each of the three defendants, payable to the plaintiff within four weeks.
Dr. Mehta has also adopted a clear position regarding the remaining defendants. His counsel expressly informed the High Court that if the other defendants tender apologies of a similar nature, the plaintiff would withdraw the case against them as well. Defendant No. 4 sought time to consider that proposal.
For Dr. Mehta, the September 30 hearing has therefore narrowed the battlefield but not ended the dispute. Two defendants have been deleted after apologies. Ashok Kumar Ranchhodbhai Parmar, The Wire and The Kashmiriyat continue in the proceedings. Their written statements are now on record, and the competing versions will proceed for judicial consideration. The matter has been listed next for hearing on 15 December 2026.
