Representing Gokhale, senior Advocate Amit Sibal stated that an unconditional apology had already been published on Gokhale's X (formerly Twitter) handle, as per a previous court directive. However, the affidavit he filed was deemed defective by the High Court's registry.
Appearing for Puri, Senior Advocate Maninder Singh from Karanjawala & Co strongly opposed the submissions and drew the Court’s attention to Mr. Gokhale’s conduct before the Single Judge in execution and contempt proceedings.
The Division Bench, while perusing the affidavit filed by Gokhale, took objection to specific portions, particularly paragraph 4, and observed that the language used could not be accepted by the Court. The Bench directed Mr. Sibal to withdraw the affidavit and file a fresh one.
The Court made it clear that the pending appeals will be taken up only once the defective affidavit is withdrawn and a new affidavit is duly filed.
The bench emphasised that future hearings on pending appeals would take place only after the defective affidavit is withdrawn and a new one is filed.
Gokhale had earlier issued a public apology following a series of defamatory tweets posted in 2021 about Puri’s property purchase. The apology stated: "I unconditionally apologise for having put out a series of tweets against Amb. Lakshmi Murdeshwar Puri on 13th and 23rd June 2021, which tweets contained wrong and unverified allegations in relation to the purchase of property by Amb. Puri abroad, which I sincerely regret," as shared on his X account.
The apology came after the Delhi High Court ordered Gokhale to apologise publicly and compensate Puri with a sum of Rs 50 lakh for the defamatory remarks. The court had previously prohibited him from making further remarks against Puri, who is the wife of Union Minister Hardeep Singh Puri.
This apology was published after the court warned Gokhale of civil detention for non-compliance with its previous rulings. On May 28, the court noted that Gokhale had failed to issue an apology within the timeframe established by the court's July 1, 2024, judgment, even ignoring an extended deadline given during contempt proceedings on May 9, 2025. The court's stern warning underscores the seriousness of adhering to judicial orders.