The Bombay High Court recently addressed a case involving actor Salman Khan and his neighbor, Ketan Kakkad, during a hearing focused on a property dispute in Panvel. The court emphasized that having access to social media does not grant individuals the right to share content that may harm the reputation of others, regardless of whether they are private citizens or public figures.
Justice Sharmila Deshmukh, who presided over the single-judge bench, reviewed Khan’s appeal against a civil court decision that did not provide him with interim protection in a defamation lawsuit he filed against Kakkad. The court urged both parties to refrain from airing their disagreements on social media, advising them to seek resolution through formal legal channels instead.
During the hearing, the judge suggested that Kakkad might want to consider taking down his tweets and YouTube videos related to the dispute. The court expressed its concern about the ongoing circulation of such content online, noting that precious judicial time shouldn’t be wasted determining whether these videos should remain on the internet.
The court also indicated that even if the controversial content was posted by third parties, there are avenues through intermediaries to have it removed. The case is set for further discussion on July 6.
The conflict centers around adjacent properties where Salman Khan has a farmhouse. Kakkad claims that Khan has breached environmental regulations and has blocked access to his own property. He insists that he raised concerns with local authorities but has seen no action taken.
In response, Kakkad has posted messages on social media and has spoken about the issue in YouTube interviews. Khan then filed a defamation suit against these public statements, alleging that they were damaging and inflammatory. He argues that the content shared by Kakkad was false and intended to incite communal unrest.
The court heard that Kakkad’s posts and videos gained significant online traction and viewership. Khan’s defamation suit includes several major social media platforms, such as Facebook, X, Google, and YouTube, as parties to the case.
Khan contends that Kakkad’s accusations arose after a proposed land transaction near his farmhouse was canceled due to legal issues. Following this, Kakkad began making claims that the cancellation was part of Khan’s actions. Kakkad has rejected the defamation accusations, asserting that his statements are based on factual information about Khan’s property and do not constitute defamation, particularly because Khan, as a public figure, has made details about his property publicly known.
