he worlds of law and entertainment often come into conflict, particularly when creative materials are inspired by actual high-profile events in real life. The recent lawsuit filed by the former Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB) officer Sameer Wankhede against the Netflix, the production house of Shah Rukh Khan Red Chillies Entertainment, and others regarding the web series called Ba**ards of Bollywood is a strong case of such collision. The essence of the controversy is defamation and the depiction of public personalities and the border between artistic expression and individual harm in the Indian law.
The Case in a Nutshell: Defamation and Alleged Misrepresentation.
Sameer Wankhede, the investigating officer in the scandalous drugs-on-cruise incident involving the son of actor Shah Rukh Khan, Aryan Khan, in 2021 has appealed to the Delhi High Court. It is a fictionalised story of the Bollywood industry and the series is the directorial debut of Aryan Khan. There is however an assertion by Wankhede that there is a series character which is a premeditated and malicious stereotype against him and which is meant to damage his reputation.
His case claims that the web series gives a false, malicious and defamatory portrayal and that such portrayal is based on the 2021 drug case. The primary legal bases of his complaint are:
1. Defamation of a Public Servant:
So simply put, a defamation can be defined as the publication of a false statement that is damaging to the reputation of a person. Wankhede claims that the series is a false depiction of an officer similar to him as a corrupt and unprofessional officer. As Wankhede is a professional, a government employee (IRS officer) such a stereotype, when shown to be evil and inaccurate, would have a considerable harm to his work reputation and general trust of the population in him and his organization. The legal claim is that the portrayal is beyond any fair criticism posing as unethical and unlawful. The suit asserts that the show is spreading a false and poor image of anti-drug enforcement agencies hence undermining the public trust towards law enforcement institutions.
2. Prejudice to Continued Judicial Proceedings (Sub Judice Matter):
Another important fact that is pointed out by the legal team of Wankhede is the timing and content of the series. They claim that the case surrounding the Aryan Khan case is yet to be heard in the courts of Mumbai. The show unjustly biases the populace by publishing a series of episodes that give a distorted account of the case and portrays the investigating officer negatively as the legal proceedings are unfinished. This argument brings to mind principle of sub judice which implies that a matter is under judicial consideration. Although the direct effect on the court procedure is a debatable issue, the establishment of an unfavorable social environment is also an essential factor.
3.Violation of National Honour and Sentiment:
The petition filed by Wankhede refers to a particular episode in the show where a character supposedly makes an obscene gesture (raising the middle finger) right after uttering the words (Satyamev Jayate) (Truth Alone Triumphs). This is a phrase that is the national motto of India and is included in the National Emblem. Wankhede says that this is a serious and sensitive breach of the provisions of the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971, and it is the offence to national feeling, which would be subject to penalties in the Information Technology Act and the new criminal code, the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). This upgrades the suit to a case of defamation directed at a person to a case of national symbols and public morality.
The Defamation vs. Defence and Legal Counter-Arguments: Creative Freedom.
The legal dilemma that Netflix and Red Chillies Entertainment will face will depend on the principle of Creative Liberty and the difference between fact and fiction.
1. Imaginative freedom and Fictionalisation:
The main defence of any fictional work is that it is not a documentary but a drama which makes creative liberties. It is argued that the character does not even get the name ofSameer Wankhede, thus any similarity is coincidental, part of a parody, or of an archetypal storytelling element of fiction. The series is sold as fiction, which generally affords the creators wide coverage.
- The Burden of Proof: Wankhede should demonstrate that the character is more than based on him, but is a literal identifiable character and that the defamatory remarks against this character are bad and that they are harmful to his real reputation.
- Public Figure Standard: The courts usually give more leeway to criticism of public officials, even vile or satirical criticism, unless the official can demonstrate that the creators were acting with actual malice, that is, knowingly of the falsity or were acting with a wanton disregard of the truth.
2. Right to Freedom of Speech and Expression (Article 19 1(a):
The media producers can greatly rely on their main right to freedom of speech and expression that is guaranteed by the Indian Constitution. This right incorporates the liberty to the media and the press (including OTT platforms) to transmit information and artistic materials even in case it is defamatory of a government official or a government department. The court has to strike a balance between this basic right and the right of the individual to reputation (which is regarded as a part of the right to life under Article 21).
3. Jurisdiction Question:
In a preliminary hearing, the Delhi High Court posed a more practical legal question on the maintainability of the case (whether the case can be heard) in Delhi. As the alleged events and the life of Wankhede are mainly in Mumbai, the Court wondered why the suit was initiated in Delhi. Although the content is streamed throughout the country, according to the counsel heard by Wankhede, the court indicated that the venue where the primary harm was inflicted could be a more reasonable jurisdiction, and so the Wankhede team may have to face a procedural challenge.
The Relief Sought and What Happens Next.
Wankhede has applied to the court in a number of ways:
- Permanent Injunction: An injunction given by a court to stop the broadcast and distribution of the series.
- Proclamation of Defamation: A court decision to the effect that the series is actually defamatory.
- Damages: 2 crore monetary compensation which he has committed to give to Tata Memorial Cancer Hospital.
It is an intricate dilemma to the court: how do we settle a case in which a work of fiction addresses real-life issues and real-life celebrities. It opposes the rights of the people to know and the media to speak to the personal rights of a person to a clean reputation and the necessity to save national honour. The result of this high profile suit is likely to establish a significant legal precedent regarding the treatment of fictional material on digital platforms in India that involves sensitive and timely events and figures of public significance.
