SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Del) 264

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV
Sameer Dnyandev Wankhede – Appellant
Versus
Red Chillies Entertainments Pvt. Ltd. – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants : J. Sai Deepak, Shaktiki Sharma, Purnima Vashishtha, Jatin Parashar, Rohit Bhagat, Kunal Vats, Aprajita, Tanya Arora, Sanyam
For the Respondents: Neeraj Kishan Kaul, Shyel Trehan, Janay Jain, Monisha, Mane Bhangale, Bijal Vora, Rhea Rao, Ashutosh Agarwal, Pranav Sarthi, Rohan Poddar, Vidhi Jain, Ayush Raj, Prachi Dhingra, Udit Bajpai, Utkarsh Vatsa, Angad Makkar, Raghav Goyal, Rajiv Nayyar, Saikrishna Rajagopal, Sidharth Chopra, Sneha Jain, Devrat Joshi, Ankit Parhar, Tejpal Singh Rathore, Abhishek Kumar, Sanchi Sethi, Mamta R. Jha, Rohan Ahuja, Mshruttima, Amee Rana, Thejesh Rajendran, Tanuj Sharma, Sankalp Udgata, Jeevan Ballav Panda

Table of Content
1. right to free speech vs. reputation (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5)
2. court's jurisdiction not established (Para 6 , 7)
3. arguments on jurisdiction (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14)
4. nature of wrong in defamation cases (Para 15 , 16 , 19 , 26)
5. implications of online defamation (Para 18 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24)
6. merger rule in jurisdiction determinations (Para 25 , 39 , 43)
7. conclusions on jurisdiction (Para 45 , 46 , 47 , 66)
8. order returning plaint to appropriate court (Para 67 , 68)

JUDGMENT :

PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J.

INDEX
I. FACTUAL MATRIX
II.SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE PARTIES
III.ANALYSIS
A. THE DECISION IN TEJPAL
B. THE RATIONALE UNDERLYING TEJPAL
C. WHETHER TEJPAL IS IN CONFLICT WITH OTHER DECISIONS
D. ANALYSING THE PLAINT
IV. CONCLUSION
V. ORDER

1. 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 oth

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top