Cloaked as an “exclusive” and tucked safely behind a paywall, The News Minute has chosen to weaponise a private divorce proceeding to mount a calculated hit job on Zoho founder Sridhar Vembu—brazenly repackaging voyeurism as investigative journalism.
The article written by one Indulekha Aravind leans heavily on a January 2025 (yes, you read that right – a year old) California court order in an ongoing divorce case to build what TNM calls an “extensive profile” of the tech entrepreneur. But what readers are actually being asked to pay for is not investigative journalism or public-interest reporting – it is access to a carefully constructed takedown of a private individual’s personal life.
Let us be clear at the outset: this is not a report in public interest. This is not about corporate governance, national security, or wrongdoing affecting citizens. This is a personal marital dispute, still under adjudication in a foreign court, now repackaged as a moral exposé because the subject does not fit TNM’s ideological comfort zone.
From Explainer To Executioner
For a publication that routinely lectures others about ethics, restraint, and responsible journalism, TNM’s decision to turn a divorce case into a political and moral indictment is telling.
The article is structured not to inform, but to discredit:
- Vembu’s public persona is dragged in only to be mocked.
- His spiritual language is framed as hypocrisy.
- His choice to live in rural Tamil Nadu is subtly sneered at.
- His public statements on dharma and money are juxtaposed with selectively quoted court observations to invite character judgement.
This is character assassination by innuendo.
What TNM Won’t Tell You
Pre-Trial ≠ Final Guilt
One of the most serious distortions in TNM’s so-called “exclusive” is its treatment of interim judicial language as moral verdict.
The article repeatedly foregrounds phrases used by the judge, such as “acted without regard for the law” and “duplicitously”, to construct a damaging portrait of Sridhar Vembu. What it does not stress, even once, is that these observations arise from pre-trial, interim proceedings, based on a limited evidentiary record, where courts routinely err on the side of protecting the allegedly weaker spouse.
This is standard practice in high-value divorce litigation. It is not a finding of fraud, criminality, or final misconduct.
There is no sustained explanation that the case is still being litigated, discovery is ongoing, and interim orders are often revisited, modified, or overturned as fuller records emerge.
TNM mentions Vembu’s denials only in passing, while giving exhaustive space to the most damaging judicial language, thereby creating the impression of a settled case when no such settlement exists.
Confusing A “Bond” With Guilt Or Liquidity
The $1.7-billion figure is presented with maximal shock value, but with minimal explanation.
What the order requires is a bond to secure potential claims, not a confirmed payout, fine, or judgement. Failure or refusal to post such a bond does not, by itself, prove that Vembu has $1.7 billion in liquid US assets, that the entire amount is personally accessible to him, or that all questioned corporate structures are fraudulent.
The bond amount appears calibrated to the alleged global value of Zoho-linked assets, not to demonstrable liquid wealth under US jurisdiction. TNM does not engage with this distinction at all. Instead, it subtly implies that non-payment is evidence of bad faith – an inference that the court itself has not conclusively made.
Treating Contested Allegations As Settled Fact
Several of the article’s most explosive claims remain hotly contested:
- whether Zoho IP was truly sold for $50 million,
- whether ZCPL paid that amount,
- whether Vembu’s economic interest is truly 5% or substantially higher,
- and whether early-2010s restructurings were legitimate or deceptive.
The court has expressed scepticism. That scepticism is not a ruling.
Yet TNM repeatedly quotes judicial doubts (“defies belief”, “raises the inference…”) without clearly stating that valuation is still under dispute, discovery is incomplete, and corporate actions from over a decade ago are being reconstructed retrospectively – a process that naturally produces gaps and ambiguities.
By collapsing allegations, interim inferences, and final conclusions into one mass, TNM is trying to present its vomit as a Michelin star dish.
The Deliberate Moral Contrast
The article’s long opening, dwelling on “simple living”, “high thinking”, “dharma”, and rural India, is deliberate – to maximise the fall of Vembu’s image.
This is classic opinion-journalism framing: trying to prove that someone with a saintly public image, cannot have money or be wealthy. They want to show this image and then shatter it with the most damaging excerpts available.
A genuine explainer would clearly separate agreed facts, interim judicial observations, and unresolved allegations still being tested. They only got Vembu’s wife’s comments, so naturally the whole article collapses. Or is TNM trying to once again resurrect the feminist image by pushing this one-sided story?
TNM chooses to blur facts from interim observations and allegations because moral contrast makes for better outrage.
No Corporate-Governance Counter-View
Perhaps most revealing is what the article does not do.
It does not speak to independent corporate lawyers, family-law experts, or specialists in founder-led global firms.
Moving IP, equity, or control to relatives and long-time co-founders is not automatically illegitimate. Such structures are common in tax planning, succession, and control consolidation especially in privately held multinational firms.
Courts will examine whether any move violated specific duties or restraining orders. Until a final ruling, it is editorial overreach to imply that every such transaction is a sham.
By omitting expert voices that could separate routine founder-divorce dynamics from genuine misconduct, TNM amplifies the appearance of scandal beyond what the record conclusively supports.
A Grey Zone, Not A Verdict
What TNM presents as exposure is, in reality, a grey zone familiar to high-net-worth divorces – complex ownership structures, offshore and cross-border asset moves, family shareholders, and community-property rules colliding with global businesses.
In such cases, judges often presume the worst when disclosure is late or incomplete. That presumption is procedural caution not final judgement.
Ultimately, it is all about character assassination of someone trying to do something good for his motherland. This is not the first time TNM did a hitjob – hitjobs are their favourite – like what they did with Dharmasthala.
Sridhar Vembu’s Counsel Accuses TNM Of Misleading Reporting
Vembu’s counsel has strongly disputed The News Minute’s portrayal of the case, stating that the article relies on a nearly year-old interim order passed on an emergency application, when the defence had limited time to respond to what he described as false allegations. The lawyer said the California court was misled by the wife’s attorney, who is not licensed to practise in California and entered the case from New York despite there being no New York jurisdictional issues.
According to the defence, Vembu had offered his wife 50% of his shares in ZCPL—an offer she has refused to accept—and had already transferred his interest in the family home to her. Despite this, she continues to allege asset concealment. The much-publicised $1.7-billion bond order, the counsel said, has no legal basis, was acknowledged by a subsequent judge as excessive, and is currently under appeal, while the related receivership order has been stayed.
The lawyer added that Vembu attempted compliance to the extent possible by borrowing up to $150 million against his shares, but the amount was refused. He clarified that the proceedings do not involve any claim for alimony or spousal support and emphasised that Vembu remains in full compliance with all lawful court orders.
As Sridhar Vembu’s counsel, I can add some facts missing from the article. The order was made 1 year ago on an emergency application by his wife, meaning we had little time to response to the outrageously false allegations she made against Sridhar. The judge in California was…
— Christopher C. Melcher (@CA_Divorce) January 8, 2026
Paywalling Personal Trauma
Perhaps the most grotesque aspect of this episode is the commercialisation of personal distress. TNM has chosen to lock this piece behind a paywall not because it is complex journalism, but because voyeurism sells.
This is not about informing the public. It is about peeping into someone’s personal life, a person opposed to your ideology and politics and monetizing it.
And then sermonising about it.
And they claim they will keep churning out such ‘pieces’ about Vembu – so is this a targeted hitjob akin to what happened during the Dharmasthala fake burial controversy which The News Minute shamelessly peddled without an iota of proof.
What TNM does is not journalism, just propaganda. Time and again, The News Minute appears to pick its subjects first and build the narrative later, especially when the individual or institution does not fit its ideological comfort zone.
In this case, it has reduced itself to a more polished version of Nakkheeran, which sells sex and sleaze content under the guise of ‘investigative journalism’.
Subscribe to our channels on Telegram, WhatsApp, and Instagram and get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.
