The bench observed that public allegations made without substantiated evidence can seriously damage an individual’s dignity and standing. Pending further proceedings, it restrained Mane from issuing comments, statements, or material related to Muchhal that could be construed as defamatory. The directive will remain in force until the next hearing, when the court is expected to review additional submissions and evidence.
Muchhal’s counsel, Shreyansh Mithare, described the ruling as a significant relief for his client, stating that the court’s prompt intervention halted the spread of what he termed false claims. He added that the order reinforced confidence in judicial safeguards against reputational harm.
Legal analysts note that interim injunctions in defamation disputes are typically granted only when courts are satisfied that immediate restraint is necessary to prevent irreparable damage. Such orders aim to strike a balance between the constitutional right to free expression and the equally protected right to reputation.
The dispute stems from allegations linked to a film investment controversy involving Mane and members of the Muchhal family. Mane had previously accused singer Palak Muchhal of financial wrongdoing related to a proposed film project titled Nazariya, as well as making personal allegations referencing cricketer Smriti Mandhana. Those claims prompted legal action, including a defamation suit seeking damages. The matter remains sub judice.
Court observers say the present order does not determine the truth of the allegations but serves as a temporary safeguard while the case proceeds. The bench emphasised that reputational harm, once inflicted publicly, can be difficult to reverse, which justified interim protection.
The next stage of the case will focus on examining documentary records, statements, and arguments from both sides. Depending on the findings, the court may modify, extend, or vacate the restraint order.
For now, the ruling effectively pauses public commentary related to the dispute, underscoring the judiciary’s role in preventing potentially damaging statements until claims are tested through due process.
