News Article

New Delhi – In a significant hearing concerning the intersection of media, reputation, and judicial process, Shah Rukh Khan's production house, Red Chillies Entertainment, has vehemently contested the territorial jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court in a defamation suit filed by controversial IRS Officer Sameer Wankhede. The suit targets the Netflix series "Bads of Bollywood," directed by Aryan Khan, which Wankhede alleges contains a defamatory portrayal of him.

Appearing for Red Chillies Entertainment before Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav, Senior Advocate Neeraj Kishan Kaul launched a forceful argument against Wankhede's plea for an interim injunction, asserting that the case is a classic instance of "forum shopping" and fundamentally belongs in a Bombay court.

The Core Jurisdictional Dispute

The primary thrust of Red Chillies' opposition rests on the principle of territorial jurisdiction. Mr. Kaul methodically dismantled the basis for filing the suit in Delhi, pointing out that the key connecting factors lie squarely within Mumbai's judicial ambit. "The jurisdiction is created in Delhi by saying that it is viewed by many, papers have reported about me," Kaul argued, characterising this justification as tenuous. He submitted that both the plaintiff, Mr. Wankhede, who resides in Bombay, and the principal defendant, Red Chillies Entertainment, whose registered office is also in Bombay, establish a clear and undeniable nexus with the city.

"Merely because you feel something, there cannot be cause of action…Apart from creating bogey of cause of action in Delhi when there is none… Clearly the jurisdiction is Bombay and not Delhi. This is clearly a case where you have come court shopping,” Mr. Kaul stated emphatically.

This argument raises critical questions for litigation involving online content. While streaming services and internet publications are accessible nationwide, the court will have to deliberate on whether mere viewership in a particular city is sufficient to establish a cause ofaction, or if more substantive connections are required to prevent litigants from choosing courts they perceive as more favourable.

Wankhede's Allegations and Demands

Sameer Wankhede’s suit seeks a permanent and mandatory injunction against Red Chillies, Netflix, and other platforms like X Corp, Google, and Meta, to halt the broadcast of what he terms a “false, malicious, and defamatory video.” His plea contends that the series was "deliberately conceptualised and executed" to malign his reputation, particularly while the criminal case involving him and Aryan Khan remains sub-judice before courts in Mumbai.

The suit seeks substantial damages of Rs. 2 crores, which Wankhede has pledged to donate to the Tata Memorial Cancer Hospital.

Beyond defamation, the suit invokes graver allegations. It avers that a scene depicting a character making an "obscene gesture" (showing a middle finger) after reciting the national motto "Satyamev Jayate" constitutes a violation of the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971. The plaint further claims the series' content contravenes provisions of the Information Technology Act and the new Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) by allegedly outraging national sentiment.

Red Chillies' Multi-Faceted Defence

Beyond the jurisdictional challenge, Senior Advocate Kaul mounted a robust defence on the merits of the defamation claim, weaving in arguments related to freedom of expression and the plaintiff's own public conduct.

Public Domain and Plaintiff's Conduct: Mr. Kaul argued that the information and allegations forming the backdrop of the series—including CBI and ED FIRs for extortion against Wankhede—were already widely available in the public domain long before the show's release. He presented news articles from the past two years to substantiate this claim.

Furthermore, he turned the spotlight on Wankhede himself, describing him as “fond of giving interviews” and someone who “talked merrily” about the issues even after the series was launched. Kaul suggested that Wankhede's engagement with the media and his public statements, including one where he dismissed the show as "all humour to him," could weaken his claim of being aggrieved. “I am not defending my depiction of the scene on the basis of this article but when he says I am wrongly targeted, I have to point out that not only are you extremely fond of giving interviews but there are inquiries pending,” Kaul elaborated.

Artistic License and Creative Expression: Addressing the content of the series, Kaul clarified that the show is a work of fiction, not a biopic or a documentary. He asserted that creators are fully entitled to be inspired by real-life persons and events. This defence leans on the principle of artistic license, where exaggeration and dramatisation are essential tools of storytelling. “Even if I am portraying you unfairly, it can never be the case...every scene is exaggerated and if I don't bring that wit, I will never be able to convey the message I want to convey,” he said.

He also cautioned against dissecting the series, arguing that Wankhede cannot isolate a "one-minute stray scene" from a seven-part show and claim it is defamatory out of context. The court must assess the work as a whole to determine its message and intent.

Legal Implications and What Lies Ahead

The preliminary battle over jurisdiction is pivotal. Should the Delhi High Court accept Red Chillies' argument, the suit would likely be dismissed with the liberty to refile in the appropriate court in Mumbai. This would represent a significant procedural victory for the defendants, reinforcing the legal principles against forum shopping.

However, if the court finds that the widespread accessibility of the series in Delhi does establish a valid cause of action within its territory, the case will proceed on its merits. This would set a noteworthy precedent for defamation cases against OTT platforms, potentially allowing plaintiffs to file suits in any jurisdiction where the content is viewed.

The case, titled SAMEER DNYANDEV WANKHEDE v. RED CHILLIES ENTERTAINMENTS PVT. LTD. & ORS , will continue to be closely watched by legal professionals in media law, intellectual property, and civil litigation. The court's ultimate decision on the injunction and the jurisdictional challenge will have far-reaching implications for how creative expression inspired by real events is balanced against an individual's right to reputation in the digital age.