Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav, J.
Sameer Dnyandev Wankhede - Plaintiff
Versus
Red Chillies Entertainments Pvt. Ltd. and ors. – Defendants
CS (OS) 698 of 2025, I.A. No. 24508 of 2025, I.A. No. 24510 of 2025 & I.A.No. 28922 of 2025
Decided On : 29-01-2026
The facts of the case are as follows:
The plaintiff, an officer of the Indian Revenue Service, is currently serving as an Additional Director in the Directorate General of Taxpayer Services in Chennai. Prior to this, he served as the Zonal Director of the Narcotics Control Bureau in Mumbai and has received various awards and recognition for his service, particularly related to operations conducted in Mumbai.
The plaintiff conducted a search and seizure operation involving a cruise ship operated by Cordelia Cruises, during which a prominent individual, Mr. Aryan Khan, was arrested for offences under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. Following this arrest, the plaintiff claims that unfounded and malicious allegations were orchestrated against him to exert pressure and influence the ongoing investigations. These allegations led to legal proceedings in Mumbai against the plaintiff.
The controversy centers around a television series titled "The Ba***ds of Bollywood," produced by the first defendant, which was released and made accessible to the public on 18 September 2025. The series is broadcast on a platform operated by the second defendant and is available across India and internationally through digital platforms such as YouTube, Facebook, and Instagram. The plaintiff contends that the series contains defamatory content about him, which has significantly harmed his reputation. The defamatory content is specifically located in the first episode of the series, starting at 32:02 minutes and ending at 33:50 minutes.
The plaintiff became aware of the defamatory content on the same day it was released, through calls and messages from friends, family, and professional contacts. He alleges that this content has lowered his reputation in the eyes of his relatives, colleagues, and society at large, and has adversely affected his professional standing and ongoing legal and departmental proceedings.
The plaintiff filed the suit seeking a permanent injunction and damages against the defendants, asserting that the defamatory content was published across the country and abroad, with a wide-reaching impact. He claims that the primary cause of action arose on the date the series was released, and that the content was accessible and viewable throughout India, including Delhi, and had a far-reaching effect on his reputation and ongoing legal matters.
In summary, the case involves allegations of online defamation through a widely accessible television series and digital platforms, affecting the plaintiff’s personal and professional reputation, with the key facts revolving around the content’s publication, reach, and the resulting harm to the plaintiff’s reputation and ongoing legal proceedings.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. establishment of facts regarding the plaintiff's background. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. procedural history and initial court observations. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 3. arguments from both parties regarding jurisdiction and defamation. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 4. court's analysis on jurisdiction and implications of defamation law. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61) |
| 5. detailed examination of jurisdictional implications based on wrong done. (Para 62 , 63 , 64 , 65) |
| 6. key conclusions on maintainability under section 19 of the cpc. (Para 66) |
| 7. court's final order regarding lack of jurisdiction. (Para 67 , 68) |
JUDGMENT :
Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav, J.
INDEX
| I | FACTUAL MATRIX |
| II | SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE PARTIES |
| III | ANALYSIS |
| III.A | THE DECISION IN TEJPAL |
| III.B | THE RATIONALE UNDERLYING TEJPAL |
| III.C | WHETHER TEJPAL IS IN CONFLICT WITH OTHER DECISIONS |
| III.D | ANALYSING THE PLAINT |
| IV | CONCLUSION |
| V | ORDER |
The strained relationship between free speech and offensive speech is as old as the idea of speech itself. That offensive speech is a form of protected expression under the umbrella of freedom of speech and expression is an oft-quoted proposition. In fact, a school of thought believes that the whole idea of protection of free speech is actually meant to preserve the right to offend, as no protection is needed for other softer forms of expression. However, the right to offend, flowing from the freedom of speech and expression, is often scrutinized on the anvil of the laws regulating speech, such as defamation, hate speech, incitement etc. The present case, factually speaking, also tests the limits of the purported right to offend, couched in artistic freedom, against the plaintiff’s right to reputation. However, as the following discussion would show, it has not been found necessary to step into the comparative merits of the allegations/facts arising before this Court. The present suit has been filed by the plaintiff seeking, inter alia, a decree of permanent injunction and damages against the defendants for publishing the allegedly false, malicious, and defamatory content produced by defendant no. 1 and broadcasted by defendant no. 2 as part of their television series titled "The Ba***ds of Bollywood" (hereinafter "said Series" ), which is stated to enjoy wide viewership across India and abroad including through digital dissemination on platforms such as YouTube, Facebook and Instagram.
I. FACTUAL MATRIX
2. The plaintiff is an officer of the Indian Revenue Service currently officiating as Additional Director in Directorate General of Taxpayer Services, Chennai under the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs. Prior to its present posting, the plaintiff served as the Zonal Director, Narcotics Control Bureau, Mumbai (hereinafter "NCB" ) on deputation. He claims that between the years 2013 and 2021, he received various awards, many of which were conferred by authorities in Mumbai. He has also, during his service, undertaken important operations, including at Mumbai. As per the plaintiff, the accolades received and the efforts undertaken by him, evince an unblemished and distinguished record of service.
3. While serving under the NCB, the plaintiff on 02.10.2021, conducted a search and seizure operation in a cruise ship operated by one Cordelia Cruises, during the course of which one Mr. Aryan Khan was arrested along with 19 other individuals for offences under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. Immediately, claims the plaintiff, after this arrest of Mr. Khan, a series of malicious and unfounded allegations were orchestrated against him by certain third parties, with a view to exert pressure and compromise the investigations being carried out in respect of Mr. Khan. These allegations, per the plaintiff, resulted in various legal proce
Jurisdiction in defamation cases, particularly online, must align with both the location of the wrong and the residence of the defendants, mandating the plaintiff to file in the appropriate jurisdict....
The jurisdiction of a defamation suit depends on where the wrong was committed, and plaintiffs must establish jurisdiction based on actual residency and occurrence of harm.
Jurisdiction for defamation suits can be established based on location of reputational harm, and applications for return of plaint must consider circumstances as they existed at the time of filing.
The court determined that in cases of electronic defamation, jurisdiction lies where the wrongful communication is felt, affirming that plaintiffs have a choice to sue where the offense occurred or w....
Jurisdiction in defamation suits depends on where the cause of action arises, affirming the plaintiff's right to sue in the court of her residence amidst conflicting claims.
Defamation suits can be filed in the jurisdiction where the reputational harm is felt, under Section 19 of the Code of Civil Procedure, without needing leave under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent.
The jurisdiction for defamation suits is determined by where the alleged defamatory impact occurs, asserting the importance of substantiated claims regarding the distribution and consequences of defa....
The court ruled that a suit for defamation can be filed in the jurisdiction where the defamatory material is circulated, regardless of where it was published.
The court ruled that without a part cause of action occurring within its jurisdiction, the plaint for defamation could not be maintained, highlighting jurisdictional boundaries as dictated by Section....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
