DAWN.COM

Today's Paper | November 30, 2024

Updated 30 Jan, 2022 08:47pm

PPP's Sharmila Faruqi files Rs50m defamation suit against TV host Nadia Khan

PPP leader Sharmila Faruqi has filed a Rs50 million defamation suit against TV show host Nadia Khan, it emerged on Sunday.

The notice comes days after Khan made a video with Faruqi's mother in which she "complimented" her makeup and sense of style.

Angered by the nature of the video, Faruqi had said she would take legal action against Khan and had filed a case with the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA).

On Jan 20, Khan uploaded another video to the YouTube channel OutStyle.com, in which she lashed out at Faruqi and implied that that the PPP leader wanted "media promotion". She also said that her comments about Faruqi's mother were meant to appreciate her and not mock her.

In response to these developments, Faruqi has sent a defamation notice to Khan, a copy of which is available with Dawn.com. The notice dated Jan 26 was sent to Khan through Faruqi's lawyer and stated that the former had published a defamatory video on the YouTube channel Outstyle.com.

"It is a well-known fact that anyone who runs a YouTube Channel gets remuneration for views and engagement as the website is designed to encourage and incentivise the sharing of sensational information without any fact-checking mechanism or regulation. Hence, by posting hate speech against my client, you are thereby trying to create a controversy just to get noticed," the notice said.

The notice said that Khan violated the privacy of the PPP leader's mother. It added that when Faruqi initiated legal action in this regard, "instead of understanding the agony of a daughter, whose mother has been grieving the loss of her husband, and subjected to sarcasm and ridicule by you, you resorted to the same YouTube channel as means of revenge."

"By stating that my client has taken upon the case of her mother against you for media time, and that decent families do not function like that, and also that she is using [the] sympathy card against her mother for publicity, not only have you adversely affected my client's good will but have also injured her reputation lowering her estimation of many of her followers/voters/supporters reducing her to ridicule, unjust criticism, dislike, contempt or hatred," the notice added.

The complainant's counsel said it was, therefore, obvious that Khan's remarks were made with mala fide intentions, and intended to create social media hype as a "distasteful attempt of increasing viewership at the cost of my client's goodwill".

The complainant demanded Khan retract the publication and circulation of the video within 15 days from the date of the legal notice.

"You are also liable to pay Rs50m as compensation for the loss and damage to my client's reputation and her mental hurt and suffering within 15 days from the date of this legal notice," the notice said.

Khan to retaliate with defamation notice of her own

In response, the TV show host said she would also be sending a Rs50m defamation notice to the politician.

Speaking to Dawn.com, she said that it seemed that Faruqi was not done with her "drama" and needed more "promotion and screen time".

She said that her lawyers had informed her from the start that there was a "strong case" against Faruqi, but she had decided to wait and see whether the PPP leader would quiet down. "But she is not one to remain silent," adding that Faruqi had made up an "imaginary situation in her head".

"Everyone has told her on social media that there was nothing in the video [...] but she does not seem to understand," Khan said, adding that Faruqi was adamant on sticking to the "concocted" story.

In the video, Khan asked Sharmila to focus on the issues being faced by the people of the country. "Look at how much time she has for a non-issue [...] but she has no time, money or interest to solve the issues being faced by the downtrodden."

She continued that Faruqi should instead focus on working for the party and the country. "She would have gotten the same promotion if she had worked for the welfare of one woman or one child."

Read Comments

A hasty retreat Next Story