During the course of the hearing, a division bench headed by Justice Milind Jadhav advised both parties to collaboratively arrive at mutually agreeable wording for a public apology, ensuring that such an agreement would not prejudice or compromise the legal rights, claims, or arguments of either side. Acting on this suggestion, the Bombay High Court on Wednesday directed noted Bollywood playback singer Kumar Sanu and his former wife, Rita Bhattacharya, to jointly finalise the language of an apology after Bhattacharya conveyed her willingness to express regret over certain statements she allegedly made about the singer during media interactions.
The court’s intervention came in connection with a defamation lawsuit initiated by Kumar Sanu, in which he has sought not only a formal apology but also monetary compensation amounting to Rs 50 crore. The legal action was formally filed in December of the previous year, alleging serious reputational harm arising from the disputed remarks. During the proceedings, Justice Jadhav emphasised that both sides should negotiate and settle on apology wording acceptable to each party, while preserving their respective legal positions and ongoing claims within the case.
Counsel representing Bhattacharya informed the court that their client was prepared to issue an apology as a step toward resolving the dispute. In response, Sanu’s legal representatives indicated that a public apology communicated through the media would be sufficient for the singer to consider withdrawing or discontinuing further legal proceedings, provided the statement adequately addressed his concerns.
Kumar Sanu, whose birth name is Sanu Kumar Bhattacharjee, had approached the High Court in December 2025 with a defamation claim seeking damages of Rs 50 crore against his former spouse. According to the petition, Bhattacharya made several remarks during interviews conducted in September 2025, which were subsequently circulated widely across social media platforms. These interviews reportedly accumulated more than 1.5 million views, and Sanu alleged that the statements caused significant harm to his professional reputation, adversely affected his public image, and resulted in the loss of potential business and professional opportunities within the entertainment industry.
Prior to the current hearing, the High Court had already issued an interim order restraining Bhattacharya from making any additional contentious or allegedly defamatory statements. The injunction prohibited her from giving interviews or continuing what the court described as a “tirade” containing remarks objected to by the plaintiff. This restriction extended across all media platforms, with the objective of preventing further reputational damage while the matter remains under judicial consideration.
The defamation suit also references a divorce settlement reached between the parties in 2001, under which both Kumar Sanu and Rita Bhattacharya had mutually agreed not to make allegations or public accusations against each other. Sanu’s legal team argued before the court that Bhattacharya’s recent public statements constituted a violation of that agreement and had negatively impacted his standing and credibility within the music and entertainment fraternity.
Reacting to the legal proceedings, Bhattacharya expressed shock and disappointment at the lawsuit. She stated that she found it surprising that legal action had been taken against her despite being the mother of Sanu’s three adult sons. She also questioned the demand for Rs 50 crore in damages, remarking that she did not understand how the singer expected her to possess such a large sum of money, and described the situation as deeply saddening.
In addition, Bhattacharya appealed for reconciliation and a more amicable resolution to the dispute. She stated that she would appear before the court and intended to request Sanu, respectfully and earnestly, to focus on being a responsible father to their children and to avoid further conflict. She added that even if reconciliation was not possible, she hoped that both sides could coexist peacefully without continued disturbance or harassment.
The matter is scheduled to be taken up again after both parties complete and submit a mutually agreed draft of the apology. Meanwhile, the court has encouraged efforts toward an amicable settlement, even as the defamation claim itself remains pending adjudication.
