The Bombay High Court on Monday refused to grant immediate relief to The Indian Express in its defamation case against senior advocate Mahesh Jethmalani over two allegedly defamatory posts on X (formerly Twitter). Justice Arif Doctor said the matter required a detailed hearing before the court could consider granting any interim relief. However, the court recorded an undertaking from Jethmalani that he would not retweet the two posts challenged 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. The court also declined to order the immediate removal of the disputed content. The interim application will now be heard further on November 27.
Why Did The Indian Express Approach Bombay High Court?
The defamation suit was filed by The Indian Express Pvt Ltd over two posts published by Jethmalani on his X account. In the posts, the senior advocate allegedly accused the newspaper of political bias in favour of the Congress party. He also questioned its editorial independence and criticised its coverage of the Election Commission of India (ECI).
Jethmalani further alleged financial links between the Congress and the newspaper group. He reportedly referred to election expenditure filings that showed advertisement payments made by the Congress during state Assembly elections. The newspaper approached the High Court, seeking legal action over these allegations and interim protection against the disputed posts.
Indian Express Seeks Immediate Takedown of X Posts
Senior advocate Dinyar Madon, appearing for The Indian Express, pressed for the immediate removal of the two posts. He argued that online content was different from printed newspaper material. Unlike physical print, digital content does not simply fade away with time. It can continue to circulate and reach a wider audience.
Madon, therefore, stressed the need for immediate takedown relief. However, Justice Doctor said the issue involved several legal questions that needed proper examination. The court noted that it would have to consider the defence of justification before deciding whether the disputed posts should be removed.
“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,” the court recorded in its order.
What Did Mahesh Jethmalani Argue Before the Court?
Senior advocate Zal Andhyarujina, appearing for Jethmalani, opposed the defamation suit. He argued that the statements made by his client were political commentary and amounted to fair comment on the newspaper’s editorial position. He also questioned whether the suit was legally maintainable.
Responding to these arguments, Madon said the defence of justification under Indian law could not be established simply through a promise to justify the statements during the trial.
On the question of maintainability, he argued that a media organisation could file a defamation case when allegations directly attack its business integrity and reputation.
Judge Suggests Both Sides Consider Settling the Dispute
During the hearing, Justice Doctor also suggested that the parties explore a possible resolution. The judge pointed out that the newspaper appeared to be aggrieved by only certain portions of the two posts. He encouraged both sides to find a way to end the dispute without prolonged litigation.
“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!” the judge remarked. He further questioned why Jethmalani was spending so much time and energy commenting on the newspaper.
“So, put an end to it,” the judge said.
Bombay High Court Lists Matter for November 27
After hearing both sides, the Bombay High Court posted the interim application for further hearing on November 27. For now, Jethmalani has undertaken not to retweet the two allegedly offending posts. However, the court has not ordered their removal or granted the immediate relief sought by The Indian Express.
The question of whether the posts amount to defamation and whether they should be taken down will require further consideration by the court. Madon appeared for The Indian Express with advocates Ziyad Madon, Pranit Kulkarni and Tejasvi Ghag, instructed by Poorvi Kamani. Andhyarujina appeared for Jethmalani with advocates Serena Jethmalani, Revati Desai, Apurva Diwanji, Anoj Menon and Nimisha Shukla, instructed by Desai & Diwanji Associates.
Sudeep Singh Rawat is a Copy Editor at NewsX Digital with over five years of experience in digital journalism. He covers national and international news, with a focus on politics, crime, technology, public affairs, and trending topics. Before joining NewsX Digital, he worked with Business Standard, The Sunday Guardian, and other digital media organisations. His reporting focuses on breaking news, enterprise stories, and explainers that inform readers through accurate, balanced, and context-driven journalism.
The post Mahesh Jethmalani Accuses Indian Express of Congress Bias, Newspaper Moves Court for Defamation, Here’s What Judge Said appeared first on NewsX.