 "The Wire tells SC no question of settlement in Jay Shah defamation case, article published in public interest")
The news portal The Wire told the Supreme Court on Wednesday that its story on Jay Shah was factual and aimed at informing the public and hence there was “no question of a settlement”, according to various media reports.
SC suggests lawyers representing Wire news portal to resolve the differences with BJP Amit Shah's son Jay Shah over an article written by a senior journalist. Wire lawyer says report was published in public interest and no question of settlement @htTweets
— bhadra Sinha (@BhadraSinha) April 18, 2018
MK Venu, founding editor of The Wire MK Venu tweeted:
Hearing the Jay Amit Shah matter SC today asked if The Wire wanted to explore a settlement with the petitioner. The Wire lawyer Nitya Ramakrishnan told court the story was factual & aimed at informing the public. Hence what a settlement in such circumstances could be was unclear.
— M K Venu (@mkvenu1) April 18, 2018
The apex court on Wednesday suggested that the lawyers representing _The Wire “_resolve their differences” with BJP chief Amit Shah’s son Jay over a report that claimed the turnover of Jay’s firm grew exponentially after BJP came to power in 2014, Outlook reported . Jay’s counsel said his client was “open to a settlement”, but the lawyer of The Wire rebuffed such a suggestion, according to the report.
The Supreme Court then adjourned the defamation matter to the first week of July, however, it continued the restraint on criminal defamation proceedings initiated against The Wire by Jay.
According to The Wire , the news portal was represented by Nitya Ramakrishnan, Kapil Sibal and Raju Ramachandran. Ramakrishnan told the apex court the article was a factual report published to inform citizens and thus it was not clear what the settlement could be in such circumstances.
Jay filed the criminal defamation case against the author of the article Rohini Singh, founding editors of the news portal Siddharth Varadarajan, Siddharth Bhatia and MK Venu, managing editor Monobina Gupta, public editor Pamela Philipose and the owner of the portal, Foundation for Independent Journalism.
In December, a civil court in Ahmedabad vacated an ex parte and interim injunction imposed on The Wire against further use and follow-up of its story in October.
With inputs from agencies
 "Home ministry extends ban on J&K's Jamaat-e-Islami for five more years under UAPA law")
 "Why the Supreme Court has temporarily banned Patanjali ads")
 "President appoints former SC judge as new Lokpal chairperson")
 "What are new changes to India's surrogacy law? Whom will it benefit?")
 "Home ministry extends ban on J&K's Jamaat-e-Islami for five more years under UAPA law")
 "Why the Supreme Court has temporarily banned Patanjali ads")
 "President appoints former SC judge as new Lokpal chairperson")
 "What are new changes to India's surrogacy law? Whom will it benefit?")