Arun Kumar Mehta Seeks Rs 2.55 Crore Damages in Defamation Suit; Agencies Call Allegations Baseless
ANN NEWS DESK
New Delhi, December 1:
The Delhi High Court on Monday heard the defamation suit filed by former Jammu & Kashmir Chief Secretary Dr. Arun Kumar Mehta against retired IAS officer Ashok Kumar Ranchhodbhai Parmar and select news media platforms. The case has drawn attention for highlighting how unverified allegations can be used to undermine governance reforms.
The matter came up before Justice Purushindra Kumar Kaurav in Court No. 47 as Item 45, listed as CS(OS) 859/2025 along with connected interlocutory applications. The suit was filed by Advocate Vasudev Sharan Swain on behalf of Dr. Mehta. Senior Advocates Puneet Mittal and Nachiketa Joshi, along with Advocate-on-Record Nar Hari Singh, appeared for the petitioner and advanced detailed arguments.
Dr. Mehta has sought a permanent mandatory injunction and damages of Rs 2.55 crore against Parmar and others.
Parmar had claimed he submitted corruption complaints against Mehta to the CBI and the National Commission for Scheduled Castes (NCSC). However, both agencies, in formal RTI replies, categorically stated that no such complaints were ever received.
Several of the letters circulated by Parmar were allegedly issued in the name of the Bureau of Public Enterprises, but an RTI response revealed no such documents existed in its records. This raised further doubts about the authenticity of the material Parmar had widely circulated.
The Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB), which examined the allegations involving governance systems in J&K, also found no substance in the claims. It confirmed that the digital reforms introduced during Mehta’s tenure—such as BEAMS, PaySys, online sanctions and e-tendering—reduced discretion and strengthened transparency, leaving little scope for irregularities.
Dr. Mehta’s petition states that Parmar’s charges were factually incorrect, wildly inconsistent and motivated by malice. Parmar’s allegations of corruption ranged from ₹1,000 crore to ₹14,000 crore—figures the suit says were arbitrary and unsupported.
The suit further notes that as Chief Secretary, Mehta had no role in contractual decisions, which were handled by designated committees. It also highlights contradictions in the allegations, including claims relating to periods when Mehta was not even posted in Jammu & Kashmir.
Legal experts say the case raises an important question:
Should public servants be allowed to circulate unverified complaints without consequence, especially when such actions can damage reputations and obstruct reforms?
With central agencies denying receipt of complaints, BPE confirming no record of Parmar’s letters, and the ACB dismissing the allegations, the case may set a significant precedent.
The Delhi High Court will hear further arguments on the next scheduled date.
