Introduction:
The Bombay High Court, in an ad-interim order dated January 15, 2025, restrained Esha Verma and unidentified John Doe platforms from publishing or disseminating any defamatory content against television actor Rupali Ganguly. The case emerged from allegations made by Esha Verma, stepdaughter of Rupali and daughter of Ashwin Verma from his second marriage, accusing the actor of being “controlling, possessive, and psychotic” toward her father. Justice Arif Doctor observed that the content and interviews published by Esha were prima facie defamatory and malicious, leading to reputational damage to Rupali. Advocates Sana Khan and Neha Balani represented Rupali, contending that Esha’s allegations were gravely prejudicing her personal and professional reputation. The court, noting Esha’s absence despite notice, granted interim relief to Rupali, prohibiting further defamatory publications.
Arguments of Both Sides:
Rupali Ganguly’s counsel argued that Esha’s public statements and interviews were not only baseless but also maliciously intended to damage her reputation and career. Sana Khan, appearing on Rupali’s behalf, highlighted that the defamatory statements were being circulated across multiple platforms, including social media and print media, causing irreparable harm to her professional standing. It was further argued that Esha’s conduct was part of a deliberate campaign to tarnish Rupali’s image, with statements in media interviews indicating targeted intent. The council emphasized that such behaviour not only caused emotional distress but also imperilled Rupali’s flourishing career in the television industry. Given the nature of the allegations, Khan sought immediate intervention from the court to restrain Esha from perpetuating her campaign of defamation.
On the other hand, Esha Verma failed to appear before the court despite being served notice. Her earlier interviews, however, formed part of the case, where she alleged that Rupali was controlling and manipulative toward her father, Ashwin Verma. These statements were published widely, leading to increased tension within the family. Although Esha did not formally present her arguments in court, the content of her public statements indicated her belief in the validity of her accusations.
Court’s Judgment:
Justice Arif Doctor, upon reviewing the evidence and submissions, found the content published by Esha to be prima facie defamatory and malicious. The court observed that Esha, in her interviews, had openly admitted to targeting Rupali, thereby substantiating the malice behind her statements. Justice Doctor noted that despite being served notice, Esha’s absence from the proceedings indicated her lack of interest in defending her actions, further strengthening the plaintiff’s case.
The court emphasized that reputation is an integral part of an individual’s dignity and held that Esha’s statements had caused substantial harm to Rupali’s personal and professional reputation. Taking cognizance of the damage being compounded daily, the court granted ad-interim relief to Rupali in terms of her prayer clauses.
The order specifically restrained Esha, her agents, servants, representatives, followers, or anyone acting on her behalf from publishing, sharing, or disseminating any defamatory, false, slanderous, or libellous statements against Rupali. This prohibition extended to all mediums, including social media platforms, digital and print media, or other public forums. Additionally, the court restrained John Doe’s platforms from perpetuating the defamatory campaign against Rupali.
Justice Doctor underlined the malicious nature of the statements and the lack of any substantive evidence presented by Esha to support her claims. The court rejected any scope for interim relief to Esha, considering the prima facie finding of malice and defamation. Consequently, the court protected Rupali’s reputation from further harm and adjourned the case for further proceedings.