Bombay City Civil Court Restrains Kamal Rashid Khan From Publishing Allegedly Defamatory Content Against Vashu Bhagnani

The Bombay City Civil Court has granted interim injunctive relief in favour of film producer Vashu Bhagnani, restraining actor and social media commentator Kamal Rashid Khan from publishing, circulating, or repeating allegedly defamatory tweets and videos against the plaintiff, while holding that prima facie the defendant had exceeded the permissible limits of criticism and encroached upon the plaintiff’s right to reputation and privacy.

The Court held that unregulated publication of such content would cause irreparable harm to the plaintiff’s goodwill and public image, warranting judicial intervention pending final adjudication of the defamation suit.

The order was passed by Judge Amit Anant Laulkar while hearing Notice of Motion No. 3298 of 2025 in S.C. Suit No. 3240 of 2024 filed by Vashu Bhagnani against Kamal Rashid Khan.

The Court partly allowed the Notice of Motion, making it absolute in terms of prayers seeking restraint and deletion of defamatory material, while rejecting the prayer seeking a mandatory direction for an unconditional public apology.

The interim injunction restraining publication and directing deletion of the offending content was ordered to operate pending the hearing and final disposal of the suit.

The dispute arose from a series of tweets and videos published by the defendant on his social media platforms, wherein he allegedly made false, slanderous and scandalous allegations against the plaintiff concerning financial impropriety, non payment of dues, involvement in illegal hawala transactions and conduct damaging to the Indian film industry.

The plaintiff contended that these statements were factually incorrect, per se defamatory, and calculated to tarnish his reputation built over decades as a prominent film producer. It was asserted that the impugned tweets and videos had received wide circulation, resulting in public ridicule, social media trial, and irreparable damage to the plaintiff’s goodwill.

Upon examination, the Court undertook a prima facie evaluation of whether the defendant’s conduct fell within the permissible scope of criticism or crossed into actionable defamation.

The Court reiterated the settled principles governing grant of temporary injunctions, namely the existence of a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and likelihood of irreparable harm, relying on the Top Court’s decision in Dalpat Kumar v. Prahlad Singh.

Observing that the defendant admitted to the authorship of the tweets but sought to justify them as critic, the Court noted that at this stage the statements appeared to go beyond mere film criticism and intruded into the personal reputation and privacy of the plaintiff without disclosing any credible factual basis.

It further noted that unrestrained continuation of such publications would result in multiplicity of proceedings and continued injury to the plaintiff, which could not be adequately compensated by damages alone.

The Court also observed that regulation of the manner of expression did not amount to a blanket curtailment of free speech, but was necessary to prevent infringement of another’s fundamental right to reputation and privacy.

In support of its reasoning, the Court relied upon the principles governing defamation articulated in Jagdishkumar Thakkar v. Waahid Ali Khan, emphasising that every person has an inherent right to preserve his reputation inviolate and that publication of defamatory words gives rise to a presumption of falsity unless justified by the defendant.

On the submissions advanced, the plaintiff argued that the impugned tweets and videos formed part of a deliberate smear campaign intended to gain publicity at the cost of the plaintiff’s reputation, particularly at the time of film releases. It was submitted that the allegations of financial misconduct and corruption were demonstrably false and had no nexus with legitimate film criticism. The plaintiff further contended that the widespread circulation of the content had already caused substantial reputational harm, necessitating immediate injunctive relief.

The defendant, on the contrary, denied any intention to defame the plaintiff and asserted that the content constituted fair comment and opinion protected by freedom of speech. He claimed to be a critic entitled to review films and comment on industry practices, and contended that no personal allegations were made against the plaintiff.

The Court conclusively held that personal opinions aired in the public domain cannot be insulated from scrutiny merely by labeling them as reviews, particularly when they contain imputations that tend to lower the reputation of an individual in the estimation of right thinking members of society. The court by means of the present order has reaffirmed the order passed earlier in 2021, granting interim relief to the petitioner.

Counsel appearing: Megha Chandra with Madhu gadodia IB M/s. Naik Naik & Co., Advocate for Plaintiff; Neha Pandey H/F Mr. Ashok Saraogi, Advocate for Defendant.

Case Title: Vashu Bhagnani v. Kamal Rashid Khan

Bench: Judge Amit Anant Laulkar

Date of Judgment: 05.12.2025