A legal dispute involving businessman Sunjay Kapur’s family has reached the Delhi High Court, which recently directed both his wife Priya Sachdev Kapur and his sister Mandhira Kapur to exercise restraint while making public statements against each other. The case has drawn attention to the escalating public exchanges between the two, which the court observed risked intensifying tensions through media and social platforms.
The matter stems from ongoing disagreements within the family that have gradually spilled into the public domain, prompting legal intervention. During proceedings, the Delhi High Court emphasised that public commentary and allegations made through interviews or social media could aggravate the situation and potentially prejudice ongoing legal matters. The court’s instruction effectively seeks to ensure that disputes are handled within appropriate legal frameworks rather than through public messaging.
Reports indicate that the conflict involves sensitive personal and business issues that have been subject to public scrutiny. Both parties have reportedly made statements that criticised each other, leading to heightened attention from the media and followers online. The court noted that while individuals have freedom of expression, responsible conduct is necessary when matters are sub judice or involve private disputes.
Legal representatives for the parties presented their respective positions during the hearing. While detailed arguments were not publicly disclosed in full, the court’s focus remained on preventing escalation and maintaining decorum during the legal process. The direction to maintain restraint is a common judicial approach in cases where ongoing disputes risk being influenced by public commentary or sensational coverage.
Observers say the High Court’s remarks highlight a broader concern about how high-profile disagreements are increasingly being litigated in the court of public opinion alongside formal legal proceedings. Judges often caution against media trials or statements that could undermine due process. By urging both sides to avoid inflammatory or provocative statements, the court has attempted to reduce the possibility of further conflict while the case progresses.
The dispute has attracted attention partly because of the family’s public profile, with social media discussions amplifying each development. In recent years, similar cases involving prominent individuals have seen courts intervene to curb public narratives that might interfere with ongoing proceedings or escalate personal conflicts unnecessarily.
For now, the High Court has not issued any substantive ruling on the underlying issues but has made it clear that both parties must exercise caution. The direction signals that the court expects future interactions to remain respectful and within legal boundaries. Any violation of such directions could potentially be viewed unfavourably by the judiciary, especially if it leads to further escalation or misinformation.