The Delhi High Court on Tuesday declined to immediately stay the trial court proceedings initiated by All India Trinamool Congress (TMC) MP Mahua Moitra against her former partner, advocate Jai Anant Dehadrai, over the custody of their pet Rottweiler dog Henry.. TMC MP Mahua Moitra is in a legal battle with her former partner over custody of their pet dog, a Rottweiler named Henry. (PTI). A bench of Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri passed the order while hearing Dehadrai’s petition against the trial court’s November 10, 2025, order dismissing his application for rejection of Mahua’s suit.. The trial court had concluded that Dehadrai’s pleas for rejection of the suit on the ground of limitation, absence of ownership or Mahua’s alleged suppression of facts were matters that required evidence to be led by both sides and could not be adjudicated without a full-fledged trial.. This came after Dehadrai, appearing as the petitioner in person, requested the court to list his petition before April 29, the date on which the high court is scheduled to hear Moitra’s plea seeking interim custody of the dog for 10 days every month or alternatively to stay the proceedings since the next date of hearing before the trial court on Wednesday.. The high court, however, declined both requests, refusing to grant an earlier hearing or to stay the trial court proceedings in Moitra’s absence, but issued notice in the petition and his application to stay the further trial court proceedings. The matter is next listed for hearing on May 14.. “Not in their absence, please. I’ll issue notice,” the court remarked.. In his petition, Dehadrai said that the trial court in its order failed to apply the principles governing the rejection of complaints to the admitted pleadings and statutory framework. “The order reflects a clear non-application of mind and permits a suit to proceed despite the absence of any legally cognizable cause of action and the existence of express statutory bars,” it stated.. Henry’s custody between Jai and Moitra became a key point of contention between them amid a broader dispute that began with Jai’s complaint to CBI in October 2023.. In his complaint, Dehadrai accused Moitra of parliamentary impropriety, corruption, and accepting money and favours in exchange for raising questions in Parliament. Following this, BJP MP Nishikant Dubey wrote to Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla, alleging that Moitra had granted businessman Darshan Hiranandani direct access to her official MP login credentials to post questions on her behalf. That same month, Dubey had also filed a complaint with the Lokpal, alleging “cash-for-query” misconduct against Moitra.. Dehadrai, in October 2023, also wrote to the then Delhi Police commissioner Sanjay Arora, accusing Moitra of kidnapping the three-year-old dog to “harass and blackmail” him. He said he purchased Henry in January 2021 for ₹75,000 and called their relationship “that of a parent and a child”.. 

 The Delhi High Court on Tuesday declined to immediately stay the trial court proceedings initiated by All India Trinamool Congress (TMC) MP Mahua Moitra against her former partner, advocate Jai Anant Dehadrai, over the custody of their pet Rottweiler dog Henry.. TMC MP Mahua Moitra is in a legal battle with her former partner over custody of their pet dog, a Rottweiler named Henry. (PTI). A bench of Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri passed the order while hearing Dehadrai’s petition against the trial court’s November 10, 2025, order dismissing his application for rejection of Mahua’s suit.. The trial court had concluded that Dehadrai’s pleas for rejection of the suit on the ground of limitation, absence of ownership or Mahua’s alleged suppression of facts were matters that required evidence to be led by both sides and could not be adjudicated without a full-fledged trial.. This came after Dehadrai, appearing as the petitioner in person, requested the court to list his petition before April 29, the date on which the high court is scheduled to hear Moitra’s plea seeking interim custody of the dog for 10 days every month or alternatively to stay the proceedings since the next date of hearing before the trial court on Wednesday.. The high court, however, declined both requests, refusing to grant an earlier hearing or to stay the trial court proceedings in Moitra’s absence, but issued notice in the petition and his application to stay the further trial court proceedings. The matter is next listed for hearing on May 14.. “Not in their absence, please. I’ll issue notice,” the court remarked.. In his petition, Dehadrai said that the trial court in its order failed to apply the principles governing the rejection of complaints to the admitted pleadings and statutory framework. “The order reflects a clear non-application of mind and permits a suit to proceed despite the absence of any legally cognizable cause of action and the existence of express statutory bars,” it stated.. Henry’s custody between Jai and Moitra became a key point of contention between them amid a broader dispute that began with Jai’s complaint to CBI in October 2023.. In his complaint, Dehadrai accused Moitra of parliamentary impropriety, corruption, and accepting money and favours in exchange for raising questions in Parliament. Following this, BJP MP Nishikant Dubey wrote to Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla, alleging that Moitra had granted businessman Darshan Hiranandani direct access to her official MP login credentials to post questions on her behalf. That same month, Dubey had also filed a complaint with the Lokpal, alleging “cash-for-query” misconduct against Moitra.. Dehadrai, in October 2023, also wrote to the then Delhi Police commissioner Sanjay Arora, accusing Moitra of kidnapping the three-year-old dog to “harass and blackmail” him. He said he purchased Henry in January 2021 for ₹75,000 and called their relationship “that of a parent and a child”.. 

 The Delhi High Court on Tuesday declined to immediately stay the trial court proceedings initiated by All India Trinamool Congress (TMC) MP Mahua Moitra against her former partner, advocate Jai Anant Dehadrai, over the custody of their pet Rottweiler dog Henry.. TMC MP Mahua Moitra is in a legal battle with her former partner over custody of their pet dog, a Rottweiler named Henry. (PTI). A bench of Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri passed the order while hearing Dehadrai’s petition against the trial court’s November 10, 2025, order dismissing his application for rejection of Mahua’s suit.. The trial court had concluded that Dehadrai’s pleas for rejection of the suit on the ground of limitation, absence of ownership or Mahua’s alleged suppression of facts were matters that required evidence to be led by both sides and could not be adjudicated without a full-fledged trial.. This came after Dehadrai, appearing as the petitioner in person, requested the court to list his petition before April 29, the date on which the high court is scheduled to hear Moitra’s plea seeking interim custody of the dog for 10 days every month or alternatively to stay the proceedings since the next date of hearing before the trial court on Wednesday.. The high court, however, declined both requests, refusing to grant an earlier hearing or to stay the trial court proceedings in Moitra’s absence, but issued notice in the petition and his application to stay the further trial court proceedings. The matter is next listed for hearing on May 14.. “Not in their absence, please. I’ll issue notice,” the court remarked.. In his petition, Dehadrai said that the trial court in its order failed to apply the principles governing the rejection of complaints to the admitted pleadings and statutory framework. “The order reflects a clear non-application of mind and permits a suit to proceed despite the absence of any legally cognizable cause of action and the existence of express statutory bars,” it stated.. Henry’s custody between Jai and Moitra became a key point of contention between them amid a broader dispute that began with Jai’s complaint to CBI in October 2023.. In his complaint, Dehadrai accused Moitra of parliamentary impropriety, corruption, and accepting money and favours in exchange for raising questions in Parliament. Following this, BJP MP Nishikant Dubey wrote to Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla, alleging that Moitra had granted businessman Darshan Hiranandani direct access to her official MP login credentials to post questions on her behalf. That same month, Dubey had also filed a complaint with the Lokpal, alleging “cash-for-query” misconduct against Moitra.. Dehadrai, in October 2023, also wrote to the then Delhi Police commissioner Sanjay Arora, accusing Moitra of kidnapping the three-year-old dog to “harass and blackmail” him. He said he purchased Henry in January 2021 for ₹75,000 and called their relationship “that of a parent and a child”.. 

 Panaji, The Goa government will draft a human-animal wildlife conflict management policy after studying the models adopted by states like Kerala and Karnataka, Forest Minister Vishwajit Rane said on Tuesday.. Goa govt to frame policy to tackle human-wildlife conflict: Minister. He was responding to a question raised by Leader of Opposition Yuri Alemao in the assembly during the ongoing budget session.. The minister said he knows the seriousness of the issue as wild animals, such as panthers, bison, monkeys and leopards, were entering the human habitats.. “I know this is a serious issue. It is important for us to create the right ecosystem within forest areas so that wildlife remains within their natural habitat,” he stressed.. Rane said his department will formulate a dedicated policy to address rising incidents of wild animals straying into human habitations.. The matter will be discussed with Chief Minister Pramod Sawant to finalise a structural framework, he told the House.. When Alemao pointed out that states like Karnataka and Kerala have formed similar policies, Rane said the Goa government will study them to learn from their best practices.. The forest department will formally write to the authorities concerned in both states to obtain their policy documents and study their approach, he stated.. The government intends to present a framework for the policy before the end of the ongoing assembly session, he added.. The minister also informed the House that a provision of ₹3.30 crore has been made to address human-animal conflict in Goa.. The forest department will conduct mapping of hotspots affected by monkey menace and compile detailed data to help formulate targeted mitigation measures, he added.. This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text. 

 The Supreme Court on Tuesday said that it would lay down the law on the Union government’s attempt to set up a Fact Checking Unit (FCU) to flag fake or misleading information relating to the business of the government, observing that individuals, digital platforms, and intermediaries must share responsibility in tackling harmful online content.. The Supreme Court said there should be very clear and demarcated guidelines. (ANI). A bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and justices R Mahadevan and Joymalya Bagchi admitted the government’s appeal against the Bombay high court’s September 2024 judgment that struck down the rule enabling the government to notify such a unit under the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021.. The court issued notices to comedian Kunal Kamra, the Editors Guild of India, and the Association of Indian Magazines, which challenged the rules before the high court.. The bench declined the government’s request to stay the high court’s ruling for now, saying it would instead decide the issue finally and without delay. “No, no. We would like to decide this matter finally. It is better to decide such matters without delay,” the CJI said when Solicitor General Tushar Mehta sought a stay on the verdict. The bench observed that the matter raised questions of significant constitutional importance.. “The question is of paramount importance, and it is just proper for the Supreme Court to lay down the law,” the court said, adding that the concerns flagged by the high court were also “very important”.. During the hearing, the court stressed the need to strike a balance between combating misinformation and safeguarding constitutional freedoms. “The issue here is how to balance the two views — it is about balancing without compromising the constitutional values,” the bench said.. The bench flagged concerns about the role of digital platforms in amplifying harmful content. “Some of these digital platforms, the way they are behaving… some of them are dangerous,” the bench observed after referring to illustrations placed before it by the Union government.. The CJI remarked that misinformation circulating online was no longer limited to harming individuals. “They were damaging personal lives, and now they are damaging the nation.”. The court indicated that any regulatory framework must clearly define responsibilities for all stakeholders. “There should be very clear and demarcated guidelines, but shifting the entire onus on the system without corresponding obligations of platforms and individuals is something that needs to be looked into.”. The case relates to Rule 3(1)(b)(v) of the Information Technology Rules, as amended in 2023, which empowered the government to notify a fact-check unit to identify online information about the government that is “fake or false or misleading”.. The Bombay high court struck down the provision in Septemb