By Anil Merani: Ever since Anupamaa lead actor Rupali Ganguly had decided to file a Rs 50 crore defamation suit against her US-based stepdaughter Esha Verma, there has been a lot of chatter about the viability of the notice, i.e. does the case have legal sanction given that the defendant lives in the US.
Since then, Rupali has filed the case in the Mumbai High Court via her Bigg Boss 17 fame lawyer, Sana Raees Khan.
Rupali is angry because Esha had called her son Rudransh illegitimate. She had poured venom against her father, Ashwin K Verma and stepmother, Rupali in a series of social media posts.
In this article, we will not discuss the merits or demerits of the case. Let the honourable high court decide, or if both parties reach a compromise, as it often happens, we will stick to the legal /jurisdictional issues since US citizen Esha lives in New Jersey state.
First, an Indian citizen can file a defamation case against a US citizen in an Indian court if the defamatory statement was published or accessed in India. This could be through a website accessed in India or a social media widely shared in India
The challenge, however, would be in the service of process, ensuring that the US citizen (Esha) is adequately served with the legal documents, which may involve international legal procedures and cooperation between the two countries’ legal systems.
Esha might also try to get the courts to quash the case on various legal grounds.
The suit would be expensive for both Rupali and Esha regarding legal fees and potential travel expenses.
A lot of time will be used in coordinating with legal professionals in different jurisdictions (Mumbai and New Jersey) and dealing with potential delays in the legal process.
Both sides must hire attorneys with experience in International law and defamation.
The case can drag on for years as either side can use stalling techniques to weaken the other’s morale, and the legal process itself is quite cumbersome. This prospect underscores the gravity of the situation and the need for careful consideration.
So, while Rupali is right to seek legal recourse, it would be better to settle it out of court; otherwise, she must be ready for the long haul.
Ironically, even if the High Court does rule in favour of the plaintiff (Rupali), the defendant (Esha) can still appeal, further dragging on the process. The reverse can happen also.
Rupali is at the height of her career and would be better off concentrating on her work rather than running from legal pillar to post.
I agree that she does not need to be physically present at every trial stage, but it will still use up resources and mind space.
The same yardstick also applies to aspiring actor Esha, who is just 26. A lengthy court trial could significantly affect her career and financial prospects, a sobering reminder of the real-world implications of legal battles.
An honourable, mutually amicable settlement is the best way forward. Once the trial starts, many unpleasant facts would tumble out of the closet, giving the media a field day. Such a scenario would not be in either party’s interest as both have families to answer to.