The Bombay High Court has granted strong interim protection to singer Kumar Sanu in his ₹50 crore defamation case. The court restrained his ex-wife and media platforms from making or spreading defamatory statements against him or his family.
MUMBAI: Veteran playback singer Kumar Sanu has received significant interim relief from the Bombay High Court in a ₹50 crore defamation suit filed against his former wife Rita Bhattacharya. The court has restrained her from “giving any contentious interviews” and has also placed limits on media platforms from publishing or circulating allegedly defamatory material against the singer or his family.
On January 21, 2026, Justice Milind N. Jadhav passed a gag order while hearing Interim Application (L) No.37218 of 2025 in Suit (L) No.37043 of 2025, titled Sanu Bhattacharjee @ Kumar Sanu v. Rita Bhattacharya & Anr. The court noted that continued public allegations, especially after decades of separation, can cause serious reputational and personal harm.
While examining the past interviews given by Rita Bhattacharya, the court made a clear observation.
Justice Jadhav stated:
“I am of the opinion that at some places in the interviews which have been given by Bhattacharya, there is a clear personal tirade against Sanu which is prima facie qualified by words that are used therein.”
The court further observed that these interviews went beyond fair comment and crossed into personal attacks.
Granting ad-interim relief, the High Court restrained Rita Bhattacharya and others from making further statements of any kind against the singer. The order specifically restrains her and media entities from-
“Writing, speaking, posting, publishing, broadcasting, or disseminating, in any for or medium, any defamatory, false, slanderous, or libelous statements concerning the Applicant or his family, through print, electronic, or social media or otherwise.”
The court also directed:
“She must not post, share, circulate, or otherwise disseminating any defamatory, false, or misleading content about the Applicant through any medium including social media, print, or digital platform.”
The court made it clear that Rita Bhattacharya “shall not give any further contentious interviews or continue with the tirade on the same line” until the interim application is finally decided. This restraint applies across all platforms, including social media, digital portals, and traditional media.
During the hearing, senior advocate Sana Raees Khan, appearing for Kumar Sanu, argued that the repeated interviews and public statements had caused immense personal, financial, and emotional damage to the singer. It was submitted that the allegations led to cancellation of pre-scheduled international shows and caused serious mental agony not only to him but also to his present family. The court recorded that the plaintiff was compelled to approach the court to protect his dignity, reputation, and family life.
The High Court, however, declined at this stage to order deletion of the already published interviews. The judge clarified that the issue of deletion would be considered after replies are filed by the defendants. The matter is now listed for further directions on January 28, 2026.
The defamation suit itself was filed last year, after Rita Bhattacharya made serious allegations in interviews given to media platforms, including claims that Kumar Sanu mistreated her during pregnancy, denied food, and refused medical care. Kumar Sanu has categorically denied these allegations, and his legal team has stated that the claims are false, malicious, and intended to damage his reputation built over decades.
The suit also relies on the divorce settlement between the parties. As per the pleadings, their 2001 divorce agreement clearly recorded that neither party would make allegations against the other. Kumar Sanu has argued that by giving repeated interviews and public statements, Rita Bhattacharya has violated this contractual obligation.
Kumar Sanu and Rita Bhattacharya were married in 1986, separated in 1994, and legally divorced in 2001. They have three sons together. The court also took note of the fact that the parties have been legally separated for over 32 years, which makes continued public accusations even more damaging and unnecessary.
Explanatory Table – Laws & Legal Provisions Involved
| Law / Legal Concept | Section / Nature | How It Applies in This Case |
| Civil Defamation | Common Law Tort | The suit is based on reputational harm caused by repeated interviews and public statements alleged to be false and malicious |
| Permanent Injunction | Civil Procedure | Court granted ad-interim injunction restraining further defamatory publications |
| Prohibitory Injunction | Civil Relief | Defendant restrained from speaking, publishing, or circulating content against the plaintiff |
| Personality Rights | Judicially Recognised Right | Plaintiff argued violation of dignity, reputation, and personal autonomy; court acknowledged protection |
| Contractual Obligation | Divorce Settlement (2001) | Divorce agreement barred both parties from making allegations; breach alleged by plaintiff |
| Media Law & Intermediary Liability | Pending Consideration | Platforms restrained temporarily; affidavits directed before final determination |
| Principles of Fair Comment | Defamation Jurisprudence | Court held interviews crossed fair comment and entered “personal tirade” territory |
| Right to Reputation | Article 21 (Implicit) | Court recognised reputational harm as serious civil injury |
| Mental Agony & Financial Loss | Civil Damages Claim | Plaintiff showed loss of shows, income, and emotional distress due to allegations |
Case Details
- Case Title: Sanu Bhattacharjee @ Kumar Sanu v. Rita Bhattacharya & Ors.
- Court: Bombay High Court
- Jurisdiction: Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction
- Suit Number: Suit (L) No. 37043 of 2025
- Interim Application: 37218 of 2025
- Date of Order: 21 January 2026
- Coram / Bench: Justice Milind N. Jadhav
- Plaintiff: Kumar Sanu (Real name: Sanu Bhattacharjee)
- Defendant No. 1: Rita Bhattacharya
- Other Defendants: Media platforms and digital intermediaries (names on record)
Counsels Appearing
- For Plaintiff: Sana Raees Khan
- For Defendant No. 1: Atif Noor Hasan Shaikh, Advocate with Ayesha Ahmed, Shanu Chaturvedi (Instructed by Zen Jurists India LLP)
- For Defendant No. 2: Amishi Sodani, Advocate (Instructed by Charu Shukla)
- For Defendant No. 3: Rishabh Jaisani with Harit Lakhani (Instructed by Amarchand Mangaldas & Co.)
Key Takeaways
- Allegations do not become truth just because they are repeated in interviews; courts still require restraint, proof, and responsibility.
- Even decades after separation, men continue to face reputational damage when personal disputes are weaponised through media narratives.
- Divorce settlements and mutual non-allegation clauses are legally binding and cannot be casually breached for public sympathy.
- Courts are increasingly recognising that a man’s reputation, livelihood, and mental health are equally deserving of protection.
- Media trials harm men disproportionately, as public perception often assumes guilt long before any legal scrutiny.
This Could Change Your Case-Get FREE Legal Advice-Click Here!
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the Indian courts and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of “ShoneeKapoor.com” or its affiliates. This article is intended for informational and educational purposes only. The content provided is not legal advice, and viewers should not act upon this information without seeking professional counsel. Viewer discretion is advised.