Bombay High Court asks Salman Khan's neighbour to delete posts against actor on property dispute

The Bombay High Court today observed that access to social media does not entitle individuals to publish content that could defame others, whether private citizens or celebrities, in the backdrop of a dispute between actor Salman Khan and his neighbour in Panvel [Salman Khan v. Ketan Kakkad & Ors.].

A single-judge bench of Justice Sharmila Deshmukh was hearing an appeal filed by Khan against a civil court order refusing to grant him interim relief in a defamation suit he filed against his neighbour Ketan Kakkad over tweets and YouTube videos concerning a property dispute.

The judge indicated that parties should refrain from litigating their disputes on social media and instead pursue remedies before appropriate legal forums. 

She also suggested that Kakkad consider deleting tweets and videos relating to the dispute.

The Bench expressed disapproval of the continued circulation of such content and underscored that judicial time ought not to be spent on examining whether such videos should remain online.

It noted that even if the content had been uploaded by third parties, steps could be taken to have it removed through intermediaries.

The Court has posted the matter for further hearing on July 6. 

The dispute concerns adjoining properties in Panvel, where Salman Khan owns a farmhouse. 

His neightbour, Ketan Kakkad, alleged that Khan violated environmental norms and blocked access to his property. Kakkad also claims to have approached authorities on this issue and that no action was taken despite this.

Kakkad subsequently posted tweets and participated in YouTube interviews to talk about the dispute.

Salman Khan filed a defamation suit against such comments. He contended that the videos and posts shared by Kakkad are not only defamatory but also communally provocative. 

It was submitted that the videos contain false, speculative and inflammatory material, including references intended to provoke communal sentiments against Khan. 

The Court was also informed that the content in question had garnered significant viewership and engagement online.

The defamation suit also impleads multiple social media platforms, including Facebook, X, Google and YouTube.

Khan has claimed that Kakkad’s allegations arose after a proposed land transaction involving a plot adjacent to Khan’s farmhouse was cancelled by authorities on grounds of illegality. 

According to Khan, Kakkad thereafter began making baseless allegations that the cancellation was orchestrated by Khan and his family.

Kakkad has opposed the defamation plea, arguing that his statements are based on facts relating to Khan’s property and do not amount to defamation. 

It has also been contended that Khan, as a public figure, has placed details of his property in the public domain.

Advocates Chirag Mody, Parag Khandhar, Chandrima Mitra, Tapan Radkar and Zara Dhanboora, briefed by DSK Legal, appeared for Khan.

Advocates Abha Singh and Aditya Pratap Singh appeared for Kakkad.