The Bombay High Court (Bombay Bench) granted ad-interim relief to the plaintiff. It restrained the first defendant from making defamatory statements against him or his family in any medium, pending the interim application hearing.
Singer Sanu Bhattacharjee (Kumar Sanu) filed the interim application seeking permanent injunction against his ex-wife Rita Bhattacharya (defendant No. 1), social media platforms (defendants Nos. 2–3), and others from publishing defamatory content. He sought immediate restraint on further tirades, deletion of objectionable interviews/posts, and protection of his personality rights and family’s reputation.
The claim centred on Rita’s recent interviews and posts containing contentious personal remarks and false insinuations that alleged caused immense financial loss (e.g., cancelled international shows) and mental agony, invoking protection of his personality rights that were previously recognised by the Delhi HC.
Plaintiff’s counsel highlighted the interviews’ contentious excerpts, arguing they caused irreparable harm. Defendant No. 1’s counsel sought time to reply and suggested mediation, given family ties and their son’s recent wedding, but agreed to restrain further damaging statements.
The Bench comprising Justice Milind N. Jadhav found the words in the transcripts prima facie defamatory at certain places and granted ad-interim relief to the plaintiff. The Court noted the parties’ long separation but stressed that this did not justify continued public attacks. It invoked the plaintiff’s established personality rights and the need to protect family from further insinuations.
The Court granted ad-interim injunction restraining defendant No. 1, her agents, servants, representatives, employees, followers and all persons acting on her behalf (including media houses) from writing, speaking, posting, publishing, broadcasting or disseminating any defamatory, false, slanderous or libelous statements about the plaintiff or his family through print, electronic or social media, pending the interim application.
Defendant No. 1 was specifically directed not to give further contentious interviews or continue the objected tirade. Requests for deletion of existing content and directions to platforms (prayers c–d) were deferred. Defendants must file affidavits-in-reply within two weeks, rejoinder within one week thereafter. Parties were encouraged to consider mediation without prejudice to any existing rights, and the next hearing was scheduled to take place on 28 January 2026.
Appearances:
Ms. Sana Raees Khan, Advocate for Plaintiff.
Mr. Atif Noor Hasan Shaikh a/w. Ms. Ayesha Ahmed, Shanu Chaturvedi, Advocates i/by Zen Jurists India LLP for Defendant No.1.
Ms. Amishi Sodani, Advocate i/by Ms. Charu Shukla, for Defendant No.2.
Mr. Rishabh Jaisani a/w. Mr. Harit Lakhani, Advocates i/by Amarchand Mangaldas & Co. for Defendant No.3.
