‘Embellishments not needed’: Bombay HC says Anil Ambani’s defamation suit against Republic TV ‘imminently resolvable’
A single-judge bench was hearing Anil Ambani’s application seeking interim relief against ARG Outlier Media Private Limited, the parent company of Republic TV.
The Bombay High Court Thursday observed that a defamation suit by businessman Anil Ambani against Republic TV’s reports on his financial transactions was “imminently resolvable” and sought the parties to make efforts to arrive at a resolution of the dispute.
The bench orally said that if the channel was reporting facts from judgments and orders of the court, the “embellishments” could be avoided.
Ambani, in his defamation suit, claimed that the “offending publications and statements” by Republic TV purported to report on regulatory proceedings initiated by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) against Reliance Communications Limited (R Com), Reliance Home Finance Limited, and/or Reliance Commercial Finance Limited.
Ambani claimed he was not involved in the day‑to‑day decision‑making of these companies, yet Republic TV and its editor‑in‑chief, Arnab Goswami, made false claims that affected his reputation.
A single-judge bench of Justice Arif S Doctor was hearing Ambani’s application seeking interim relief against ARG Outlier Media Private Limited, which runs Republic TV.
On April 1, another bench of Justice Milind N Jadhav had said that he was not passing any order without hearing the parties and had orally asked the channel to “keep rhetoric down” and exercise “restraint” till the next hearing.
On Thursday, advocate Mayur Khandeparkar for the plaintiff Ambani claimed that “fair reporting cannot be invoked to justify trying to assassinate someone’s character.”
Story continues below this ad
“You (Republic TV) are building a public perception about me that just because there is an FIR and the authorities are not arresting me, he (Goswami) will now sit in judgment and get something done. This is what according to my client is the effect of this kind of a narration being based. My client is entitled to challenge FIR. Courts will hear the authorities and decide and they are there to rule on this. But building this kind of public perception against my client and then trying to colour everybody’s mind, is affecting plaintiff’s image,” Khandeparkar argued.
However, Senior Advocate Mahesh Jethmalani for the defendant channel claimed that the reports in question were a factual narration of the legal proceedings. He said everything that his client had said was “true” and contained “fair comment”.
“These embellishments need not be there. If you are reporting facts from judgments, orders, please do. There is no question. That is your justification and it is right there. But embellishments over that need not be there. That seems to be the reason… so that you will report in terms of only the orders of the court. Why have embellishments over and above that? Public interest in knowing is one thing. Can you evoke and rouse their interest by adding embellishments is another. Temper needs to little (less or down),” Justice Doctor orally said.
“I am not passing any order of restraint. You (Channel) will report if the occasion to report arises,” the judge clarified.
Story continues below this ad
“After hearing the advocates at some length, it was my view that this matter was imminently resolvable,” Justice Doctor noted in his order.
After Khandeparkar brought on record certain “per se defamatory” documents, Jethmalani sought that the same shall be furnished to the defendant channel “in an attempt to see whether the defendants could arrive at a resolution of their disputes.” The court accepted this and posted further hearing for April 29.
Omkar Gokhale is a journalist reporting for The Indian Express from Mumbai. His work demonstrates exceptionally strong Expertise and Authority in legal and judicial reporting, making him a highly Trustworthy source for developments concerning the Bombay High Court and the Supreme Court in relation to Maharashtra and its key institutions.
Expertise & Authority
Affiliation: Reports for The Indian Express, a national newspaper known for its rigorous journalistic standards, lending significant Trustworthiness to his legal coverage.
Core Authority & Specialization: Omkar Gokhale's work is almost exclusively dedicated to the complex field of legal affairs and jurisprudence, specializing in:
Bombay High Court Coverage: He provides detailed, real-time reports on the orders, observations, and decisions of the Bombay High Court's principal and regional benches. Key subjects include:
Fundamental Rights & Environment: Cases on air pollution, the right to life of residents affected by dumping sites, and judicial intervention on critical infrastructure (e.g., Ghodbunder Road potholes).
Civil & Criminal Law: Reporting on significant bail orders (e.g., Elgaar Parishad case), compensation for rail-related deaths, and disputes involving high-profile individuals (e.g., Raj Kundra and Shilpa Shetty).
Constitutional and Supreme Court Matters: Reports and analysis on key legal principles and Supreme Court warnings concerning Maharashtra, such as those related to local body elections, reservations, and the creamy layer verdict.
Governance and Institution Oversight: Covers court rulings impacting public bodies like the BMC (regularisation of illegal structures) and the State Election Commission (postponement of polls), showcasing a focus on judicial accountability.
Legal Interpretation: Reports on public speeches and observations by prominent judicial figures (e.g., former Chief Justice B. R. Gavai) on topics like free speech, gender equality, and institutional challenges.
Omkar Gokhale's consistent, focused reporting on the judiciary establishes him as a definitive and authoritative voice for legal developments originating from Mumbai and impacting the entire state of Maharashtra. ... Read More
