Back
Can Media Label Private Property As Cursed? Bombay High Court Restrains False Digital Content
In a significant , the has granted to businessman Shashi Kiran Shetty, restraining various media outlets and online platforms from labeling his private residence, the ‘Ashirwad’ bungalow, as “cursed,” “haunted,” or “unlucky.” Justice Arif S. Doctor observed that such characterizations are and infringe upon the owner's constitutionally protected right to live with dignity and privacy.
A Legacy Under Fire
The dispute arises from the persistent online circulation of articles and videos linking the high-profile Bandra property to its former owner, the late Bollywood superstar Rajesh Khanna. Despite the original bungalow being demolished to make way for a newly constructed residence, media organizations continued to publish sensationalist content describing the property as a “haunted” site that ruined the careers of those who lived there. These publications often included references to the bungalow as “ill-omened,” causing significant distress to the current occupant and his family.
Arguments at the Bar
Representing the Plaintiff, argued that the series of persistent online posts and videos across various platforms created a false and malicious narrative. He contended that such labeling constitutes clear and violates , which guarantees a citizen’s right to dignity, reputation, and peaceful residence. The legal team highlighted that despite formal notices requesting the removal of this content, most defendants failed to respond or comply, necessitating .
Judicial Analysis and Reasoning
The Court’s analysis emphasized the intersection of public interest, digital media responsibility, and personal rights. Justice Doctor found that the repetitive nature of these publications, often driven by a quest for clicks and sensationalism, bore no factual basis. By characterizing a private home in terms that suggest it is an "afflicted" or "haunted" space, the defendants were found to have crossed the threshold from objective reporting into personal .
The Court distinguished between reporting on public figures and the unauthorized harassment of private citizens, noting that the status of a property’s previous owner does not grant media entities the liberty to tarnish the reputation and privacy of current occupants.
Key Observations
- “The material, in my prima facie view is clearly defamatory of the Plaintiff so as to suggest that the Plaintiff lives in a haunted and so called cursed bungalow.”
- “The fundamental right to live with dignity and privacy, a right that is constitutionally guaranteed to every citizen of our Country under .”
- “Clearly such publications would be wholly unjustified and in the nature of creating sensationalism, at the cost of the Plaintiff and for no fault of the Plaintiff.”
The Road Ahead
Convinced that the Plaintiff had established a strong , the High Court directed the defendants to remove the offending content from their respective platforms. The order serves as a stern reminder to digital publishers regarding the limits of speculative content and the protection of individual privacy. The matter is currently listed for further hearing on , by which time the respondents are required to file their . The court's remains in effect, setting a critical precedent for protecting homeowners from defamatory digital narratives.
