Delhi HC Restrains Further Publication Of Content Branding 'Dubai Bling' Star Satish Sanpal A 'Fraudster,' 'Satta King'

The Delhi High Court on May 6 granted interim protection to Dubai-based businessman Satish Sanpal by restraining 21 media houses, digital news portals, and journalists from publishing posts branding him a hawala operator, bookie, fraudster, "Satta King," or absconder. The court also directed them to take down specified existing posts.

Sanpal, Chairman of ANAX Holding and a cast member of the Netflix reality series Dubai Bling, filed the suit against Jagran Prakashan Limited and 25 others. He alleged that since around 2014 he had been the target of a coordinated campaign portraying him as a hawala operator, bookie and absconding fugitive across multiple digital platforms.

Granting ad-interim relief, Justice Vikas Mahajan observed that the defendants had "prematurely labelled the plaintiff as the culprit, branding him a 'fraudster', 'Satta King', and an 'absconder', even when the criminal investigations are underway and the plaintiff has already been granted bail by competent courts."

The suit seeks a permanent injunction and damages against content originators, publishers, digital news portals and journalists, as well as intermediary platforms including YouTube, Instagram and LinkedIn.

According to the plaint, the publications did not merely report allegations or ongoing investigations but portrayed the plaintiff's guilt as an established fact. Sanpal contended that he had been granted bail in the criminal proceedings referred to in the publications and had not been declared a proclaimed offender by any court.

Senior Advocate Amit Sibal, appearing for Sanpal, argued that the impugned posts, videos and articles amounted to a media trial. He submitted that the defendants had repeatedly described the plaintiff as a "hawala operator", "fraudster", "Satta King" and "absconding fugitive" even though the investigations remained pending.

Sibal further contended that the publications formed part of an orchestrated campaign designed to exploit the plaintiff's popularity for commercial gain. According to him, unverified police allegations had been presented as established facts without independent verification or journalistic due diligence.

The court examined three FIRs that featured prominently in the impugned reports. Those FIRs concerned allegations relating to betting networks, recovery of cash and the alleged unauthorised use of Aadhaar and PAN documents to open bank accounts for transactions. The allegations remain under investigation.

Several publications, however, went beyond the contents of those FIRs, the court noted. They asserted that Sanpal had laundered ₹1,000 crore through shell companies and hawala channels. Some reports also linked him to the Mahadev online betting app scandal.

According to the court, those allegations "find no mention in the referenced FIRs or any judicial determination."

The court also took note of publications that targeted ANAX Holding. Some reports suggested that the group's business valuation may stem from criminal sources, while others warned prospective investors and business partners against dealing with entities associated with the plaintiff.

As for the repeated references to Sanpal as an absconder or fugitive, the court pointed out that he had already secured bail in the criminal cases cited in the reports through orders dated December 10, 2025, January 13, 2026 and January 21, 2026. It also noted that none of the publications referred to any judicial order declaring him a proclaimed offender.

Sanpal had meanwhile sent cease-and-desist notices between February and April 2026, informing the defendants about the bail orders and disputing the "absconder" label. Yet the content remained online.

The court observed that the continued use of the label after the defendants had been notified of the bail orders "prima facie points towards malice."

The judgment also referred to the fallout from the publications. It recorded that the Government of St. Lucia had denied citizenship to Sanpal's brother after citing media reports alleging money laundering and gambling activities. The court further noted material showing that financial services provider PEMO.IO had suspended the plaintiff's accounts following inquiries into adverse media reports.

While weighing the competing rights involved, the court said media organisations remain entitled to disseminate information contained in FIRs and other material that is informative and in the public interest.

At the same time, it emphasised that they must "exercise restraint and refrain from publishing and circulating any material referring to the character of the plaintiff which creates an atmosphere of prejudice for him or mar his reputation and thereby causes prejudice to an ongoing investigation."

The court relied on decisions dealing with media trials and the right to reputation, including the Supreme Court's judgment in Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India. It underscored the need to balance freedom of speech with an individual's right to reputation and a fair trial.

Holding that Sanpal had established a prima facie case and that the balance of convenience lay in his favour, the court restrained defendants 1 to 21 from publishing any posts making identical or similar defamatory allegations against him until the next date of hearing.

It also directed the defendants identified in the tabulated chart at paragraph 63 of the plaint to remove the impugned posts and maintain that position until further orders.

The matter is next listed before the Joint Registrar on August 21, 2026.