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.

JUDGMENT :

PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J.

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 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 proceedings being initiated by and against him, including at Mumbai.

4. Thereafter, the said Series came to be directed by Mr. Aryan Khan, and produced by defendant no. 1, which is a company promoted by the parents of Mr. Aryan Khan, one Mr. Shahrukh Khan and his wife one Ms. Gauri Khan. On 18.09.2025, the said Series w