Subhash Chandra Accuses Mukesh Ambani’s Reliance Media Network of ‘Wrong Propaganda’; Reliance Denies Claim

Essel Group chairman Subhash Chandra has accused Mukesh Ambani and media organisations associated with Reliance of running what he called “wrong propaganda” over his personal-insolvency proceedings. Reliance has rejected the charge as baseless, saying its media brands have never been used to attack anyone.

The public confrontation follows the National Company Law Tribunal’s August 25, 2026, decision supporting a repayment plan in the personal-insolvency case involving Chandra. The plan allocates ₹6.25 crore to creditors and another ₹25 lakh towards process costs, against admitted claims reported at approximately ₹22,006.57 crore.

That comparison has generated headlines describing a 99.97% haircut. Chandra’s objection is that these headlines create the impression that he personally borrowed ₹22,000 crore and is clearing that borrowing by paying ₹6.5 crore. The proceedings actually concern personal guarantees he provided for loans raised by Essel-linked companies.

What Subhash Chandra alleged against Mukesh Ambani

In a video message, Chandra directly addressed Ambani and asked him to stop the alleged campaign against him and the Essel Group.

“Mukesh ji, please stop the wrong propaganda against me personally and my group,” Chandra said. He specifically questioned coverage by TV18 and CNBC-TV18, alleging that it misrepresented the nature of the liabilities under consideration.

Chandra also invoked Mukesh Ambani’s father, Dhirubhai Ambani, saying he had learnt considerably from the late industrialist. His remarks went beyond criticism of individual news reports and alleged that Reliance-associated media entities were being used to target him.

No independent evidence establishing an organised misinformation campaign by Reliance or Mukesh Ambani has been identified. The claim must therefore remain clearly attributed to Chandra.

Reliance calls the allegations ‘baseless’

Reliance firmly rejected Chandra’s accusation.

“The Reliance Group has noted with dismay the baseless remarks” made by Chandra, the company said in its response. It denied his allegations against Reliance-associated media entities and maintained that its brands had never been used to attack anyone.

The company also said it continued to hold Chandra in high regard as an entrepreneur and wished him well.

Reliance’s response means the central allegation is contested: Chandra claims the reporting formed part of a deliberate campaign, while Reliance denies that its media operations were used for such a purpose.

What the NCLT proceedings actually concern

The case is Indiabulls Housing Finance Limited v Dr Subhash Chandra, part of a personal-guarantor insolvency process under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. Indiabulls Housing Finance is now known as Sammaan Capital.

According to the official Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India listing, the NCLT order dated August 25 concerns approval of a repayment plan in a personal-guarantor case. It is not an insolvency proceeding against Zee Entertainment Enterprises Limited.

Court material records approximately ₹21,697 crore in admitted claims from 23 eligible creditors. The repayment proposal contemplated:

• ₹6.25 crore as Chandra’s personal contribution;

• ₹25 lakh towards insolvency-process expenses; and

• additional proposed payments of approximately ₹1,494 crore by principal borrowers.

The ₹6.25 crore figure, therefore, refers specifically to Chandra’s contribution under the personal repayment plan. Describing the outcome only as “₹22,000 crore settled for ₹6.5 crore” omits both his status as a personal guarantor and the separate proposed contribution from the borrowing companies.

However, the guarantor-borrower distinction does not make the ₹22,006-crore figure fictitious. The figure comes from claims lodged or considered during the insolvency proceedings. The dispute concerns what that number represents and how much can legally or practically be recovered from Chandra personally.

Why Chandra disputes the ₹22,000-crore framing

In an earlier clarification, Chandra’s office said he had not borrowed the money in his personal capacity. It stated that he had signed personal guarantees for loans obtained by Essel-associated companies.

Chandra said claims filed in the process totalled about ₹22,006 crore, with approximately ₹21,696 crore admitted by the resolution professional. He argued, however, that lenders opposing his plan had filed claims of ₹3,992 crore, of which ₹620 crore had already been settled, leaving ₹3,372 crore according to his calculations. These figures represent Chandra’s explanation and should not be substituted for the total claims recorded in the proceedings.

His office further claimed that borrowing companies for which he provided guarantees had repaid approximately ₹43,000 crore since January 2019 against outstanding group borrowings of around ₹45,000 crore. That repayment figure is also an attributed claim from Chandra’s statement.

Why the repayment plan remains controversial

The plan received the required creditor support, with creditors representing 80.814% of the votes cast backing it. The tribunal proceedings nevertheless involved a difference of opinion between the original judicial and technical members, after which a third member was appointed to consider the disputed issues.

Dissenting lenders have questioned the exceptionally low recovery under Chandra’s personal contribution. HDFC Bank, LIC Housing Finance, Canara Bank and Union Bank-related entities have been reported as moving, or preparing to move, the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal against the approval.

Banks have also alleged that entities associated with Chandra possessed a substantial share of the votes supporting the plan. Chandra’s office has denied that characterisation. This issue is disputed and could form part of the appellate proceedings; it should not be presented as a settled finding.

Until those challenges are resolved, the August 25 NCLT decision remains the key operative development, but the wider litigation cannot responsibly be described as conclusively finished.

An older Zee–Reliance dispute returns to focus

Chandra connected his present criticism to the 2021 corporate confrontation involving Zee Entertainment and shareholder Invesco. He alleged that Reliance attempted to secure control of Zee through the episode.

Reliance had previously acknowledged holding discussions with Invesco regarding a possible combination of its media assets with Zee. Those discussions did not produce a transaction. Chandra later pursued a merger between Zee and Sony, but Sony terminated that proposed deal in January 2024.

Chandra has now placed that earlier dispute and the reporting of his insolvency proceedings within the same narrative. His allegation that the two are connected has not been independently established.

The Celebrity Hour Take

The most important part of this controversy is not the personal exchange between two prominent businessmen. It is the gap between an accurate headline and a technically incomplete one.

The NCLT records do support reporting that the proceedings involved claims running into more than ₹22,000 crore and that Chandra’s personal contribution is ₹6.25 crore. But describing the case as though he directly borrowed that entire sum and secured a conventional one-time settlement for ₹6.5 crore leaves out the central legal fact: he entered the process as a personal guarantor for corporate borrowings.

At the same time, calling the ₹22,006-crore figure entirely false would also be misleading. It appears in the insolvency record as the scale of claims under consideration. The sharper editorial question is why the personal-guarantor process produced such a low recovery, how the creditor vote was constituted and whether the appellate tribunal will uphold the plan.

Chandra’s accusations against Ambani may attract more attention, but the lender challenges could have greater legal and financial consequences.

Sources & Verification

This report was prepared using the official IBBI listing for the August 25 NCLT order, publicly available extracts from the tribunal proceedings, statements issued by Subhash Chandra’s office, his recorded video remarks and Reliance’s published response. Legal and financial details were cross-checked against specialist court and business reporting. Allegations of a coordinated media campaign, related-party influence and improper corporate interference remain disputed and are presented only with clear attribution.