“What in 51 Videos Prompted a Bombay HC Order? Court Finds Some Statements Prima Facie Defamatory”

Anam Sayyed
June 25, 2026

Justice Arif S. Doctor of the Bombay High Court, passed an important order in a defamation case filed by Habib Esmail Hospital & Medical Trust against Salim Shaikh and others.

Defamation Allegations:

The dispute arose from a series of videos allegedly published by Defendant No. 1, which contained statements and allegations against the plaintiff hospital. The hospital approached the High Court, arguing that several statements made in these videos were defamatory and had seriously damaged its reputation.

During the hearing, the hospital’s counsel submitted a compilation of excerpts from 51 videos along with English translations of the allegedly defamatory content. The hospital specifically pointed out the portions of the videos that it claimed were defamatory on their face.

Court’s Prima Facie Observation:

After examining the material placed before it, the Court recorded the following prima facie observation:

“Upon perusal of the said excerpts and translations, I prima facie find merit in the submissions advanced by Mr. Pai that portion of the said transcription are per se defamatory.”

Videos to Be Edited:

In response, counsel for Defendant No. 1 informed the Court that his client was willing to edit the videos and remove the portions alleged to be per se defamatory, provided those portions were specifically identified and communicated to him. It was also stated that those those portions would remain removed until the interim application was finally decided. The Court accepted the statement and found the proposed course of action acceptable.

Reporting Allowed, Allegations Barred:

Justice Arif S. Doctor clarified that Defendant No. 1 would not be prevented from reporting on the incident in question. However, the Court directed that certain allegations and insinuations against the plaintiff hospital should not be repeated until the application was decided.

The Court observed:

“Defendant No. 1 shall not be restrained from reporting on the incident in question. However, any allegations, imputations, or insinuations contained in the videos which attribute blame to the Plaintiff Hospital, including references describing the hospital as a ‘Kattalkhana’ or suggesting that the Plaintiff was complicit in murder, shall not be repeated pending the disposal of the Application.”

Court Warns Defendant:

The order also records an incident that took place during the hearing. Defendant No. 1, who was personally present in Court, interrupted the proceedings and insisted that a photograph be handed over to the Court through the Court Associate.

The Bench immediately expressed its disapproval. Recording the incident, Justice Arif S. Doctor stated:

“I immediately expressed my displeasure at such conduct and cautioned Defendant No. 1 that any repetition thereof would not be countenanced by this Court and would be viewed with the utmost seriousness.”

Unconditional Apology:

Following the Court’s warning, Defendant No. 1 offered an unconditional apology and assured the Court that such conduct would not be repeated. Taking note of the apology, the Court decided not to take any further action on the issue.