A Mumbai court has issued a temporary injunction against filmmaker Abhinav Kashyap, preventing him from making any derogatory remarks against actor Salman Khan and his family. The ruling, delivered by Judge P G Bhosale, comes in response to a defamation lawsuit filed by Khan, who claims that Kashyap's comments were not only false but also harmful to his reputation. The court emphasized that while freedom of speech is a fundamental right, it does not permit individuals to use abusive and threatening language.
The lawsuit, which seeks ₹9 crore in damages, was initiated after Kashyap released a series of 26 video interviews and podcasts between September and December 2025. These videos, aired on the "Bollywood Thikana" channel, allegedly contained scandalous statements that tarnished Khan's professional integrity and personal character. The court noted that such comments could be deemed as prima facie defamatory, necessitating immediate legal action to protect Khan's reputation.
- Defamatory remarks against family — The lawsuit highlights specific derogatory statements made about Khan's family members, including his father, Salim Khan, and brothers, Arbaaz and Sohail Khan.
- Legal basis for injunction — The court ruled that Kashyap's statements were abusive and insulting, justifying the need for a temporary restraining order.
- Freedom of speech limitations — The court clarified that while individuals have the right to express themselves, it does not extend to making defamatory remarks.
The court's decision underscores the delicate balance between free speech and the protection of individual dignity. The judge remarked that no one should make defamatory statements against another person's family, reinforcing the notion that every individual has a right to privacy and a good reputation. This ruling may have broader implications for how public figures interact with media and express their opinions.
In light of the court's findings, Kashyap and his associates are barred from making any further defamatory comments or publishing any related content until they respond to the lawsuit. This case serves as a reminder of the responsibilities that come with public discourse, especially in the age of social media where statements can spread rapidly and have lasting consequences.
