Bombay HC Restrains Media Defendants from Calling Ashirwad Bungalow ‘Cursed’ or ‘Haunted’ After New Owner Files Defamation Suit

Justice Arif S. Doctor found publications labelling the reconstructed Ashirwad bungalow as haunted or cursed prima facie defamatory of its current owner and violative of his Article 21 rights.

The High Court of Judicature at Bombay has granted an ad-interim injunction restraining multiple media defendants from publishing, disseminating, or failing to take down content that describes the Ashirwad bungalow in Mumbai as “cursed”, “haunted”, or “unlucky”. Justice Arif S. Doctor, sitting singly, passed the order on 24 July 2026 in an interim application filed by Shashi Kiran Shetty, the current owner of the property, through his authorised representative Subhash Gole. The court held, on a prima facie reading of the material placed before it, that the publications were defamatory of the Plaintiff and also impinged upon his constitutionally guaranteed right to live with dignity and privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

The Dispute Before the Court

Shashi Kiran Shetty purchased the bungalow originally known as Ashirwad, which had previously been the residence of the late Bollywood actor Rajesh Khanna. The Plaintiff demolished the original structure and constructed a new house for the exclusive use of himself and his family. The name Ashirwad was retained for the new house.

After taking possession, the Plaintiff encountered a stream of online articles, social media posts, Instagram reels, Facebook videos, and YouTube content referring to the bungalow as haunted, cursed, ill-omened, or unlucky. The content frequently attributed the alleged decline of several Bollywood careers to residence at the bungalow.

The Plaintiff filed Suit (L) No. 18587 of 2026 before the Bombay High Court and simultaneously moved Interim Application (L) No. 19136 of 2026 seeking a temporary injunction against further publication and a mandatory injunction directing the defendants to take down existing content hosted at the URLs listed in Schedule A of the application. The defendants named include Scoopwhoop Media Pvt. Ltd., Diligent Media Corporation Limited, Buzzzooka Prime, Rajshri Entertainment Private Limited, NDTV Convergence Limited, Indiadotcom Digital Private Limited, Holiday Triangle Travel Pvt. Ltd., Google, Meta, and several individual content creators.

The Offending Publications

Dr. Birendra Saraf, Senior Advocate appearing for the Plaintiff, tendered a tabular chart of fourteen publications that the Plaintiff identified as per se defamatory. The publications span August 2023 to June 2026. Among them:

• Scoopwhoop Media (Defendant No. 1) published an article on 5 August 2023 titled “Aashirwad Bungalow: The Story of the Cursed Bungalow that Ruined the Careers of 3 Bollywood Superstars”.
• Diligent Media Corporation (Defendant No. 2) published an article on 21 February 2024 describing the bungalow as a ‘haunted, cursed’ property that ‘ruined’ three Bollywood superstars.
• Buzzzooka Prime (Defendant No. 3) posted on Instagram on 29 April 2025, calling Ashirwad “Bollywood's most haunted bungalow” and a “225 crore worth cursed Bungalow”.
• NDTV Convergence Limited (Defendant No. 5) published an article on 22 April 2026 and, after the suit was filed, published a further article on 22 June 2026 again describing the bungalow as cursed and linking it to the ruin of three superstars.
• Indiadotcom Digital (Defendant No. 6) published two articles, one dated 3 October 2024 and another on 1 May 2025, on similar lines. A separate article by Holiday Triangle Travel Pvt. Ltd. (Defendant No. 7), published on 20 March 2025, listed Ashirwad at serial number 7 in a roundup titled “19 Real Haunted Houses in India That Will Give You A Cold Sweat in 2026”.
• Several YouTube videos were also highlighted, published by Defendant Nos. 10, 11, and 12 between June 2025 and April 2026, with transcripts produced before the court.

Dr. Saraf emphasised that NDTV Convergence published one of these articles on 22 June 2026 — after the suit had already been filed. He also pointed to a publication by ETV Bharat dated 29 December 2025 that had not yet been impleaded in the suit.

The Legal Issues Raised

Dr. Saraf pressed two distinct legal grievances before the court. The first was defamation. He argued that describing the Plaintiff's home as haunted, cursed, or unlucky plainly suggests that the Plaintiff and his family live in such a property, which is false and damaging. He submitted that the common thread across all fourteen publications was the association of Ashirwad with bad fortune and the supernatural, regardless of the fact that the original structure had been demolished and an entirely new house built in its place. He argued that some articles, even when acknowledging the change of ownership, still proceeded on the basis that the bungalow was Rajesh Khanna's Ashirwad — thereby perpetuating the defamatory association.

The second grievance was the violation of Article 21. Dr. Saraf submitted that the Plaintiff's right to live with dignity and privacy, as recognised under Article 21 and consistently affirmed by courts, encompasses the right to reputation, the right to privacy, and the right to be free from false public portrayals. He also separately raised that Defendant No. 13 was engaged in unauthorised photography and videography of the bungalow using zoom lenses and recording devices, directly violating the Plaintiff's right to privacy.

The publications were further characterised as malicious falsehood, in that they propagated occultist ideas without any factual basis.

Defendant No. 4 and the Modified Prayer

At the hearing on 24 July 2026, counsel for Defendant No. 4 — Rajshri Entertainment Private Limited — informed the court that it had already removed the offending YouTube video. A letter dated 2 July 2026 from Defendant No. 4 to the Plaintiff had also conveyed this. Mr. Manek Kalyaniwala, appearing for Defendant No. 4, assured the court that if the content was still accessible it would be removed within a week. The court accepted that undertaking.

Following this, Dr. Saraf stated that the Plaintiff did not wish to press the suit against Defendant No. 4. The prayers in the interim application were accordingly modified. The temporary injunction prayer (a) was reformulated to operate against Defendant Nos. 1 to 3, 5 to 7, and 10 to 13 — and their affiliates, representatives, media partners, and persons acting under their instructions — restraining them from publishing or disseminating any material akin to the impugned articles and videos, including references such as “cursed”, “haunted”, “unlucky”, and similar terms.

The mandatory injunction prayer (c) was similarly reformulated to direct Defendant Nos. 1 to 7 and 10 to 12, along with their affiliates and agents, to forthwith take down and remove all publications and content hosted at the URLs set out in Schedule A of the interim application.

The Court's Prima Facie View

Justice Arif S. Doctor, after hearing Dr. Saraf and reviewing the offending publications placed on record, held that the Plaintiff was wholly justified in seeking the reliefs prayed for. The court recorded that the material was “clearly defamatory of the Plaintiff” on a prima facie view, in that it suggests the Plaintiff lives in a haunted and so-called cursed bungalow. The court further held that the publications impinge upon the Plaintiff's right to live peacefully and in dignity.

A significant factor in the court's reasoning was the absence of any appearance by the other defendants. The court recorded that none of the respondents, apart from Defendant No. 4, had appeared despite being served, and therefore none had offered any justification or defence for the offending publications. Against that backdrop, the court held that the publications were wholly unjustified and appeared to be in the nature of sensationalism, caused at the cost of the Plaintiff and for no fault of his. The Plaintiff had made out a case for ad-interim relief in terms of the modified prayers.

The Plaintiff had also sent legal notices to all defendants in January and February 2026 calling upon them to remove the content. Google, which was impleaded as Defendant No. 8, replied on 23 January 2026 and 30 January 2026 that it was not responsible for content indexed on its search engine and had no obligation to remove any content absent a court direction. Meta, impleaded as Defendant No. 9, was similarly approached. The court's order addresses the underlying content publishers directly, though the ad-interim directions as framed apply to the named media defendants.

Outcome

Justice Arif S. Doctor granted ad-interim relief in terms of the modified prayers (a) and (c). The injunction restrains Defendant Nos. 1 to 3, 5 to 7, and 10 to 13 from publishing or disseminating any material akin to the impugned articles and videos, including references to terms such as “cursed”, “haunted”, and “unlucky” in connection with the bungalow. The mandatory direction requires Defendant Nos. 1 to 7 and 10 to 12 to take down and remove all content hosted at the URLs in Schedule A of the interim application.

The matter is listed for further hearing on 21 August 2026. The ad-interim relief continues until that date. The respondents have been directed to file their reply affidavits, if they choose to do so, within three weeks of being served with a copy of the order.