Mahmood Bhatti and YouTube hosts ordered to submit surety bonds of Rs 3 million each

The Punjab Defamation Tribunal has allowed defendants Mehmood Ahmad Bhatti, a fashion designer and others to contest a defamation claim filed by Rizwan Aftab Ahmad, director of National Hospital, DHA Lahore, but ordered each of them to furnish a personal surety bond of Rs 3 million.

In an order issued on 3 September 2026, the tribunal accepted the applications for leave to defend filed by Mehmood Ahmad Bhatti (Defendant No. 1) and Defendant No. 2. Defendant No. 3 had already been proceeded against ex-parte on 12 May 2026. The leave was granted subject to each defendant submitting a personal surety bond of Rs 3 million to the satisfaction of the Registrar of the Tribunal.

The plaintiff, a healthcare entrepreneur, alleged that the defendants circulated a defamatory letter to the CEO of a private hospital containing false claims of unauthorised commercial activities and misuse of hospital resources. He further claimed that Mehmood Ahmad Bhatti, with the help of Defendants No. 2 and 3, spread defamatory allegations on social media accusing him of involvement in the manufacture of fake drugs, causing irreparable harm to his reputation.

Counsel for Mehmood Ahmad Bhatti argued that the claim was misconceived and frivolous, that the plaint failed to quote the exact words of the alleged remarks, and that the letter was a privileged communication addressed to the CEO, board members and the Punjab Healthcare Commission in his capacity as a shareholder and board member. Counsel for Defendant No. 2 maintained that he is a digital journalist, that the interview was a protected activity in the public interest, and that he merely hosted the discussion without naming the plaintiff or making defamatory remarks.

Plaintiff’s counsel countered that the interview and letter were directed at the plaintiff, that any reasonable viewer would associate the remarks with him, that the circulation of the letter was malicious and therefore not privileged, and that Defendant No. 2 provided a platform for the dissemination of the alleged defamation.

After hearing arguments and examining the record, the tribunal noted that mixed questions of law and fact were involved and that the defendants had categorically denied making defamatory remarks. Relying on case law including 2002 SBLR 754, 1993 PSC 569 and 2014 LHC 1229, the tribunal accepted the applications for leave to defend subject to the Rs 3 million personal surety bonds.

The matter has been fixed for 22 September 2026 for submission of proposed issues, lists of witnesses, lists of reliance and any other documents the parties wish to produce.