Bombay High Court refuses to order Mahesh Jethmalani to take down tweets against Indian Express

The Bombay High Court on Monday refused to grant any interim relief to newspaper daily The Indian Express in its defamation suit against Senior Advocate Mahesh Jethmalani over his alleged defamatory comments on his posts on X. [The Indian Express v. Mahesh Jethmalani & Ors.]

Justice Arif Doctor said that the matter would have to be heard at lenght before any relief is granted.

However, the Court recorded an undertaking by Jethmalani that he would not be retweeting the two tweets flagged by the newspaper.

"The defendant (Jethmalani) would not be retweeting the two allegedly offending tweets. In my view, this would be sufficient at the ad-interim stage," the Court said.

Senior advocate Dinyar Madon for Express pressed for an immediate takedown, emphasizing that digital content does not fade like physical print.

However, the judge concluded that the same would require a detailed hearing.

"In my view, since this would entail a detailed hearing, which would require the court to go into pleas of justification, etc., it would not be appropriate at this stage to consider the same. I will consider this when I hear this interim application for detail on reopening," the court recorded in its order.

The suit for defamation was filed on account of two posts published by Jethmalani on his X handle.

In the posts on X, Jethmalani accused The Indian Express of political bias in favour of the Congress party and compromising its editorial independence.

He also specifically criticised its reporting on the Election Commission of India.

He further alleged financial links between the Congress party and the newspaper group, citing election expenditure filings showing advertisement payments made by the Congress during state assembly polls.

Senior advocate Zal Andhyarujina for Jethmalani argued that the senior advocate's statements constituted political commentary and fair comment on editorial leanings.

He also claimed the suit was not maintainable.

Madon argued that the defence of justification under Indian law cannot rely on a mere promise to justify statements at trial.

On maintainability, he argued that a media company can maintain a defamation action when its business integrity is attacked.

The judge suggested the parties to settle the issue amongst themselves considering Express was aggrieved by only certain portions of the tweets.

"Tell me a manner in which you can... Try to resolve it. Because your client, I mean, if you read it, he's spending so much of his precious and valuable time on The Indian Express. Reading it, following it, commenting on it. He's got so many better things to do! Why spend so much of his time and very valuable time and energy, you know? So, put an end to it," the judge remarked.

The interim application was then posted for further hearing on November 27.

Madon appeared with advocates Ziyad Madon, Pranit Kulkarni, and Tejasvi Ghag, instructed by Poorvi Kamani for The Indian Express Pvt Ltd.

Andhyarujina appeared with advocates Serena Jethmalani, Revati Desai, Apurva Diwanji, Anoj Menon, and Nimisha Shukla, instructed by Desai & Diwanji Associates for Jethmalani.