Bombay High Court cautioned Republic TV and editor Arnab Goswami against sensational reporting in Anil Ambani case. Court stressed accuracy, restricting coverage strictly to official records and orders.
The Bombay High Court warned Republic TV and its editor Arnab Goswami against adding sensational or exaggerated elements to their coverage of court proceedings in the case involving industrialist Anil Ambani.
Justice Arif Doctor observed that although reporting on legal proceedings is permissible, coverage must stay grounded in what appears in court orders and official records.
The judge said,
“Please report all of that. No one is stopping you. But there is no need to add embellishments,”
The Court was hearing Ambani’s defamation suit against ARG Outlier, the company that owns Republic TV.
The Court observed,
“These embellishments need not be there. If you are reporting facts from judgments, orders, please do. No question. That is your justification. But embellishments over that need not be there,”
Justice Doctor also distinguished between straightforward factual reporting and commentary meant to capture attention.
The judge said,
“Public interest in knowing is one thing. Can you evoke and rouse their interest by adding embellishments is another,”
The judge indicated that the matter could potentially be resolved.
The judge asked,
“Why can’t this entire matter be resolved? Why must a truth like this lie? I mean, putting egos and tempers and all aside,”
ALSO READ: Canara Bank Withdraws ‘Fraud’ Tag on Anil Ambani’s Loan, Tells Bombay HC
Ultimately, the Court did not issue any restraint order and instead listed the case for further hearing on April 29.
Ambani had approached the Court contending that Republic TV’s broadcasts exceeded the boundaries of fair reporting and created a harmful public impression.
Advocate Mayur Khandeparkar, appearing for Ambani, argued that the coverage amounted to an attempt to tarnish his character.
He argued,
“I don’t think any kind of fair reporting can possibly be invoked to justify trying to assassinate somebody’s character,”
The petition sought a temporary injunction against ARG Outlier, Goswami, and other unnamed parties (John Doe respondents).
Earlier, the High Court had asked Republic TV and Goswami to reduce the tone and rhetoric used in reporting. During Thursday’s proceedings, Senior Advocate Mahesh Jethmalani, appearing for Republic, maintained that the channel’s reporting falls within permissible limits of “fair comment.”
ALSO READ: Bombay High Court Dismisses Anil Ambani’s Plea Against SBI’s ‘Fraud’ Loan Classification
He said,
“There is much more latitude, especially for the freedom of the press. And public interest in knowing, including inference statements made by journalists”,
He further submitted that if Ambani provides a list of statements/comments he objects to, the channel could reconsider them if it felt they were genuinely offensive.
After hearing both sides, the Court posted the matter for further consideration on April 29.
Khandeparkar was assisted by advocates Ameet Naik and Madhu Gadodia. Jethmalani was briefed by advocates Zoeb Cutlerywala, Vikram Kamath, and Advait Shukla.
Earlier as well, the Court had refrained from stopping Republic TV entirely, but directed that it should not publish what it termed “below-the-belt” content.
Case Title: Anil Ambani v. ARG Outlier & Ors
FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE