NEW DELHI: Red Chillies Entertainment has told the Delhi high court that Indian Revenue Service officer and former NCB Mumbai zonal director Sameer Wankhede 's defamation suit against its Netflix series The Bads of Bollywood is "misconceived," arguing that the show is "a work of situational satire" and that Wankhede’s reputation had already been under public ridicule long before its release.
In its detailed reply, the Shah Rukh Khan-owned production house said the web series does not name or depict Wankhede, nor does it contain any defamatory material, adding that "the plaintiff cannot claim reputational harm where none existed to begin with," news agency ANI reported.
The affidavit stated that Wankhede's public image had already suffered following the 2023 CBI FIR against him for alleged extortion and corruption, undermining his claim of an "unblemished record."
"The existence of the FIR and the necessity for interim protection belie the plaintiff’s assertions," the reply said, adding that he "was already the subject of public ridicule and adverse commentary" prior to the show’s release.
Red Chillies maintained that The Bads of Bollywood is a satire on the Hindi film industry, exploring themes of celebrity culture, nepotism, and sensationalism through humor and exaggeration — forms of expression protected under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.
Challenging the maintainability of the case, the company also argued that the Delhi high court lacks jurisdiction, since both Wankhede and the principal defendants, including Netflix, are based in Mumbai.
Referring to a brief, one-minute-forty-eight-second scene that Wankhede objected to, Red Chillies said it “merely portrays an overzealous officer” and carries no defamatory reference.
Quoting the Bonnard v. Perryman principle, the reply urged the court to avoid pre-trial injunctions in defamation cases as they amount to prior restraint on free speech.
“Satire allows the satirist to criticise in the harshest terms and is not intended to harm reputation. Whether the comment is malicious or artistic can only be determined at trial,” it said.
The company further argued that as a public servant, Wankhede “must not be too thin-skinned” and should withstand fair comment and parody. His petition, it said, was an “attempt to stifle legitimate artistic expression.”
The Delhi high court has listed the matter for hearing on November 10, after directing all parties to file written submissions.
(With ANI inputs)
In its detailed reply, the Shah Rukh Khan-owned production house said the web series does not name or depict Wankhede, nor does it contain any defamatory material, adding that "the plaintiff cannot claim reputational harm where none existed to begin with," news agency ANI reported.
The affidavit stated that Wankhede's public image had already suffered following the 2023 CBI FIR against him for alleged extortion and corruption, undermining his claim of an "unblemished record."
"The existence of the FIR and the necessity for interim protection belie the plaintiff’s assertions," the reply said, adding that he "was already the subject of public ridicule and adverse commentary" prior to the show’s release.
Red Chillies maintained that The Bads of Bollywood is a satire on the Hindi film industry, exploring themes of celebrity culture, nepotism, and sensationalism through humor and exaggeration — forms of expression protected under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.
Challenging the maintainability of the case, the company also argued that the Delhi high court lacks jurisdiction, since both Wankhede and the principal defendants, including Netflix, are based in Mumbai.
Referring to a brief, one-minute-forty-eight-second scene that Wankhede objected to, Red Chillies said it “merely portrays an overzealous officer” and carries no defamatory reference.
Quoting the Bonnard v. Perryman principle, the reply urged the court to avoid pre-trial injunctions in defamation cases as they amount to prior restraint on free speech.
“Satire allows the satirist to criticise in the harshest terms and is not intended to harm reputation. Whether the comment is malicious or artistic can only be determined at trial,” it said.
The company further argued that as a public servant, Wankhede “must not be too thin-skinned” and should withstand fair comment and parody. His petition, it said, was an “attempt to stifle legitimate artistic expression.”
The Delhi high court has listed the matter for hearing on November 10, after directing all parties to file written submissions.
(With ANI inputs)
You may also like
APEC leaders' summit kicks off in South Korea amid global trade uncertainties
Delhi Govt lifts one-year limit on NOC applications for deregistered old vehicles
Gujarat: Grand celebrations to be held at Statue of Unity in Ekta Nagar on Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel's birth anniversay
"Made minister just to win bypoll": Union Minister G Kishan Reddy questions CM Revanth's decision over Mohammed Azharuddin's cabinet induction
Watch: Tears, smiles and family hugs - Jemimah Rodrigues' emotional moment after playing innings of a lifetime vs Australia
