Shetty, in his plea, had sought that the media be restrained from publishing “false, false, malicious and defamatory” material.
The court had said in July that it cannot order a complete silence on the media for reporting anything against Shetty. However, it had directed the removal of three videos uploaded on YouTube.
On Monday, Shetty’s lawyer, Abhinav Chandrachud, told the court that they were in talks with most of the respondents (media outlets and private individuals running blogs and vlogs), and many of them had agreed to remove the objectionable posts.
Posting the matter for further hearing on October 1, the bench directed the plaintiffs to segregate the defendants into two categories – private vloggers and bloggers, and traditional media outlets.
Justice Patel said, “The traditional media will understand rational and competent advice. We cannot say the same about these private vloggers and bloggers.”
The court also asked Chandrachud why the plaintiff was in a hurry to hear the petition.
Justice Patel said, “You (Shetty) have not been able to get permanent injunction (against media reports), so why are you in a hurry? This case related to Raj Kundra is going to go on for some more time.” .
“I am not worried about Shilpa Shetty… she will take care of herself. I am more concerned about her minor children. Media reports on Shetty’s personal life with her own children are a matter of concern… such matters In India, it is the children who are at the centre,” Justice Patel said.
.