Notices Raise Serious Allegations of Conflict of Interest, Pre-Existing Bias and Links With the Opposite Side; Mumbai Tak Accused of Functioning Like a Spokesperson for Aditya Thackeray’s Party
Misconduct Already Placed Before High Court; Defamation Proceedings Likely Against Media Houses
The notices further raise serious questions regarding the independence, impartiality and bona fides of the reporting by the concerned media organisations. According to Satish Salian, the material and instances cited in the notices disclose a pattern which requires an explanation as to whether the reporting was driven by pre-existing bias, conflict of interest or proximity to persons connected with the opposite side.
The notice further specifically states that the concerned media organisations’ alleged selective, one-sided, distorted and misleading reporting is not merely contrary to the basic principles of journalistic fairness, but is also in violation of the Norms of Journalistic Conduct, Principles and Ethics prescribed by the Press Council of India. These standards require the media, particularly while reporting judicial proceedings, to maintain accuracy, fairness, balance and responsibility and to ensure that an incomplete or misleading picture of a pending case is not presented to the public.
According to the notice, once a media organisation chooses to prominently report adverse developments in a judicial proceeding, deliberately withholding subsequent material developments in the very same proceedings, thereby allowing an earlier false, distorted or incomplete impression to continue in the public domain, is contrary to recognised standards of journalistic conduct and ethics. The notice further asserts that such conduct is also contrary to the principles and binding directions laid down by the Supreme Court and various High Courts concerning fair, accurate and responsible reporting of judicial proceedings.
The notice therefore maintains that the issue cannot be brushed aside merely as a matter of editorial choice or freedom of the press. It directly concerns journalistic accountability, fair and truthful reporting of court proceedings, the public’s right to receive accurate and complete information, and the integrity of the administration of justice.
Insofar as Bar & Bench is concerned, the notice raises serious allegations of bias, conflict of interest and selective suppression of material judicial developments. It refers to alleged personal/professional affiliations or dealings involving persons connected with the opposite side, including Aditya Thackeray and his counsel, Senior Advocate Sudeep Pasbola. The notice specifically refers to a recent allegedly sponsored/promotional publication concerning Adv. Pasbola, which, according to Salian, sought to project and glorify him despite his defeat in the Bar Council election and despite what the notice describes as documentary material forming the basis of pending allegations concerning forgery, false evidence and fraud upon the Court.
More seriously, Salian alleges that this was not an isolated editorial omission but part of a continuing pattern of selective coverage and an attempted “cover-up” through non-reporting of material court proceedings. According to the notice, while Bar & Bench chose to publish material favourable to or glorifying Adv. Pasbola, it failed to report the pendency and material developments of proceedings/applications before the Bombay High Court seeking action for alleged perjury, false affidavit/forgery and fraud upon the Court against Aditya Thackeray and persons connected with his legal representation, including Adv. Pasbola, despite their obvious relevance to the very litigation which Bar & Bench had chosen to cover.
The notice therefore calls upon Bar & Bench to explain why adverse material concerning Satish Salian and his petition was considered newsworthy, while the pendency of serious applications alleging perjury, forgery and fraud upon the Court against persons on the opposite side was allegedly withheld from its readership. Salian contends that, if this pattern is established, the issue goes beyond ordinary editorial discretion and raises a serious question of pre-existing bias, conflict of interest, deliberate selective reporting and an attempt to prevent the public from receiving a complete and balanced account of the pending judicial proceedings.
The notice also levels a strong allegation against Mumbai Tak, contending that its reporting and conduct have been so consistently supportive of Aditya Thackeray and his political party that, according to Salian, it has effectively functioned like a “party spokesperson” rather than an independent and neutral media platform in relation to the controversy. The notice relies upon various instances and material cited therein in support of this allegation and calls upon the organisation to explain its position.
Salian contends that these circumstances become particularly significant because the concerned media organisations allegedly published and amplified developments capable of creating an adverse public perception of his petition, but failed to give comparable coverage to the crucial Bombay High Court proceedings of 3 August 2026, when subsequent developments directly relevant to his grievances came before the Court.
According to the notices, selective reporting cannot be justified as an innocent exercise of editorial discretion if the overall pattern shows that adverse material concerning one side is repeatedly highlighted while material judicial developments favourable to that side are systematically omitted. Salian has therefore demanded a clear explanation and appropriate disclosure of any professional, commercial, personal, financial or other relationship or dealing, if any, with the opposite parties, their lawyers or persons associated with them, so that the public can independently assess whether any conflict influenced the reporting.
The notices maintain that freedom of the press does not include a licence to distort pending judicial proceedings through selective publication or suppression of material developments. Where a media organisation chooses to report one side of a pending case, journalistic fairness and accountability require that material subsequent developments necessary to complete the picture are also fairly placed before the same audience.
TV9 Marathi’s Earlier Reporting Also Questioned; Notice Seeks Explanation for Subsequent Silence
The notice also raises serious objections regarding the earlier reporting by TV9 Marathi reporter Krishna, alleging that he had published false, distorted, incomplete and misleading reports concerning Satish Salian, his petition and his advocates, thereby creating an adverse and incorrect impression before the public.
According to Salian, the subsequent proceedings before the Bombay High Court, particularly the crucial hearing of 3 August 2026, materially contradicted and falsified the narrative presented in those earlier reports, and the Court’s observations concerning the police were also inconsistent with the position projected through such reporting. Yet, despite having actively reported the matter when the coverage was adverse to Salian and his advocates, the reporter and TV9 Marathi allegedly remained conspicuously silent when subsequent judicial developments undermined their earlier narrative.
The notice contends that such conduct raises a serious issue of selective and one-sided journalism. If a media organisation cannot fairly remain silent when subsequent proceedings in the very same case correct, contradict or materially alter the picture earlier presented to its viewers. According to Salian, the failure to report these subsequent developments, while leaving the earlier allegedly misleading reports uncorrected, has continued and aggravated the false impression created before the public, requiring an explanation, correction and publication of the complete subsequent developments.
Misconduct Already Placed Before High Court; Defamation Proceedings Likely Against Media Houses
Satish Salian has further stated that the alleged selective, false, distorted and misleading reporting, suppression of material subsequent developments and other acts of misconduct have already been specifically brought to the notice of the Bombay High Court through appropriate proceedings, wherein action has been sought under the law relating to criminal contempt and other applicable penal provisions.
According to Salian, the matter has therefore gone beyond a mere disagreement over editorial judgment. His case is that the earlier reports caused serious prejudice to him, his advocates and the pending judicial proceedings, while the subsequent failure to report material developments before the High Court allowed the allegedly false and incomplete public narrative to continue uncorrected.
The legal notices have now provided the concerned media houses an opportunity to explain their conduct, publish the complete and correct subsequent developments, and appropriately correct or clarify the allegedly false and misleading reports. In the event of failure to take corrective steps, separate defamation proceedings and other remedies available under civil and criminal law are also likely to be initiated against the concerned media organisations and persons responsible, in addition to the proceedings and reliefs already sought before the Court.
