Copyright news18
In a detailed response to the Delhi High Court over a plea by former NCB Mumbai Zonal Director Sameer Wankhede in the Netflix series ‘The Ba*ds of Bollywood’ case, the Red Chillies Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. has described the defamation suit against it as “wholly misconceived, untenable in law, and devoid of merit.” The response also mentioned that Wankhede was already the subject of “public ridicule and adverse commentary” prior to the release of the series and hence cannot claim fresh reputational damage. Wankhede has filed a defamation suit against Red Chillies and Netflix for allegedly maligning his reputation in their series and has also sought Rs 2 crore in damages, which he wants donated to the Tata Memorial Cancer Hospital for cancer patients. Wankhede has also sought an injunction against the Netflix series. The response by the Shah Rukh Khan-owned production house argued that the web series is “a work of situational satire” and does not name or depict Wankhede, nor does it contain any defamatory material. The affidavit supporting the reply was sworn to by Venkatesh Mysore, authorised signatory of Red Chillies. At the outset, Red Chillies challenged the maintainability of the suit, asserting that the Delhi High Court lacks territorial jurisdiction as both Wankhede and the principal defendants, including Netflix, are based in Mumbai. The production house also contested Wankhede’s claim of an “unblemished record,” referring to the FIR registered against him in May 2023 by the CBI, for alleged extortion and corruption. The reply mentioned that “the existence of the FIR and the necessity for interim protection undermine the Plaintiff’s claim of an unblemished reputation.” Red Chillies also maintained that ‘The Ba*ds of Bollywood’ is a satirical depiction of the film industry, addressing issues such as nepotism, paparazzi culture, and celebrity controversies. It stressed that the series uses humour, exaggeration, and parody as protected forms of artistic expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. The production house submitted that the brief scene objected to by Wankhede, lasting only one minute and forty-eight seconds, “merely portrays an overzealous officer” and carries no defamatory reference to the plaintiff. Red Chillies has also argued that Wankhede, being a public servant, must withstand public scrutiny. “Those who fill public positions must not be too thin-skinned. A person whose conduct has been the subject of official inquiry cannot claim special protection from fair comment or satire,” it stated, adding that Wankhede’s plea is an “attempt to stifle legitimate artistic expression” and should be rejected on grounds of hypersensitivity. The production house contended that removing the impugned clip would distort the narrative flow of the series, which has been streaming on Netflix since September 18, 2025. It also argued that any alleged injury to Wankhede is compensable by damages, whereas an injunction would cause “irreparable prejudice to creative freedom and set a dangerous precedent.” The Delhi High Court, which directed all parties to file written submissions, has listed the matter for hearing on November 10 before Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav. WHAT SAMEER WANKHEDE ALLEGED IN THE COURT Sameer Wankhede filed a rejoinder before the Delhi High Court, accusing Red Chillies Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. of producing and circulating “false, malicious and defamatory” content through ‘The Ba***ds of Bollywood’. Wankhede contended that the web series is not a work of fiction but a “personal vendetta disguised as satire”, orchestrated to malign his reputation following the 2021 Cordelia Cruise drug case involving Shah Rukh Khan’s son, Aryan Khan. In the rejoinder, Wankhede alleged that the character of a government officer depicted in the series was deliberately modelled on him, citing striking resemblances in appearance, speech, and the use of his trademark phrase ‘Satyamev Jayate’. He said the scene amounted to a “premeditated, targeted campaign” intended to ridicule and destroy his reputation. Wankhede asserted that the content has caused him public humiliation, leading to a “wave of online ridicule” against him and his family. The rejoinder further accused the company of revenge and commercial greed, asserting that “the defendants cannot hide behind the convenient veil of satire or artistic expression to justify a malicious act.” Wankhede argued that his right to reputation, protected under Article 21 of the Constitution, has been violated and urged the court to restrain the streaming and promotion of the allegedly defamatory scenes until the defamation suit is decided. ALSO READ | Emraan Hashmi Says Viral B**ds Of Bollywood Clip Inspired From Real Event: ‘A Fan Who Started Singing…’
