Delhi High Court Clears Procedural Hurdle for Sameer Wankhede's Defamation Case Against Netflix Series
The Delhi High Court has granted permission to IRS officer Sameer Wankhede to proceed with his defamation lawsuit against a Netflix series in Mumbai, after determining that the national capital court lacks the necessary territorial jurisdiction to hear the matter. This procedural clearance marks a significant development in the legal battle surrounding the portrayal of Wankhede in the streaming series.
Court Proceedings and Jurisdictional Transfer
The matter was heard before Justice Vikas Mahajan, who allowed Wankhede's application seeking liberty to present his plaint before a competent court in Mumbai. The court has directed the parties to appear before the Mumbai court on February 12, when Wankhede intends to formally institute the suit. This decision follows an earlier ruling by Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav on January 29, which returned the plaint under the Civil Procedure Code, granting Wankhede permission to approach the appropriate forum.
Acting on that liberty, Wankhede moved an application under Order VII Rule 10A of the CPC to facilitate the transfer of the case to Mumbai. The court observed that all procedural requirements had been met and formally cleared the way for the suit to be pursued before the City Civil Court in Mumbai. This procedural operationalization ensures that Wankhede can continue his legal challenge without further jurisdictional obstacles.
Background of the Defamation Allegations
Wankhede had approached the Delhi High Court alleging that a character shown in Episode 1 of the Netflix series 'The Ba***ds of Bollywood', produced by Red Chillies Entertainment and streamed on Netflix, constituted a thinly veiled and defamatory portrayal of him. The series is linked to events surrounding the Aryan Khan drugs case, in which Wankhede was involved as an investigating officer.
In his lawsuit, Wankhede sought directions for the removal or restraint of certain scenes, contending that the depiction damaged his reputation and dignity. He argued that the character's appearance, conduct, and mannerisms bore an unmistakable resemblance to him and had been widely identified as such in media reports. The lawsuit highlights the ongoing tensions between public figures and fictional portrayals in entertainment media.
Defendants' Objections and Court's Ruling
The defendants, including Red Chillies Entertainment, raised a preliminary objection on territorial jurisdiction. They argued that the suit ought to have been filed in Mumbai since Wankhede resides there and Red Chillies Entertainment's registered office is also located in the city. Additionally, they maintained that the series is a fictional and satirical work and does not recreate the Cordelia cruise raid, distancing it from specific real-life events.
Accepting these submissions, Justice Kaurav had earlier ruled that the Delhi High Court could not entertain the suit and ordered the plaint to be returned. With Monday's order, that decision has now been procedurally operationalized, enabling Wankhede to continue his legal challenge in Mumbai. This jurisdictional shift underscores the importance of proper venue selection in defamation cases involving media content.
Implications and Next Steps
This case raises important questions about the intersection of entertainment, defamation law, and jurisdictional issues in India. As Wankhede prepares to file his suit in Mumbai, the legal proceedings will likely focus on whether the Netflix series' portrayal constitutes defamation and if the fictional nature of the content provides a defense. The outcome could set precedents for similar cases involving public figures and streaming platforms.
The transfer to Mumbai is expected to streamline the legal process, given the city's connection to both parties. Observers will be watching closely as the case unfolds, particularly in how courts balance creative expression with protection of individual reputation. This development also highlights the growing scrutiny of OTT platforms and their content in India's legal landscape.
