NEW DELHI: Purple Chillies Leisure has advised the Delhi excessive courtroom that Indian Income Service officer and former NCB Mumbai zonal director Sameer Wankhede's defamation go well with in opposition to its Netflix collection The Bads of Bollywood is “misconceived,” arguing that the present is “a piece of situational satire” and that Wankhede's status had already been beneath public ridicule lengthy earlier than its launch.In its detailed reply, the Shah Rukh Khan-owned manufacturing home mentioned the net collection doesn't identify or depict Wankhede, nor does it include any defamatory materials, including that “the plaintiff can not declare reputational hurt the place none existed to start with,” information company ANI reported.
The affidavit said that Wankhede's public picture had already suffered following the 2023 CBI FIR in opposition to him for alleged extortion and corruption, undermining his declare of an “unblemished file.”“The existence of the FIR and the need for interim safety belie the plaintiff's assertions,” the reply mentioned, including that he “was already the topic of public ridicule and hostile commentary” previous to the present's launch.Purple Chillies maintained that The Bads of Bollywood is a satire on the Hindi movie business, exploring themes of movie star tradition, nepotism, and sensationalism by means of humor and exaggeration — types of expression protected beneath Article 19(1)(a) of the Structure.Difficult the maintainability of the case, the corporate additionally argued that the Delhi excessive courtroom lacks jurisdiction, since each Wankhede and the principal defendants, together with Netflix, are primarily based in Mumbai.Referring to a short, one-minute-forty-eight-second scene that Wankhede objected to, Purple Chillies mentioned it “merely portrays an overzealous officer” and carries no defamatory reference.Quoting the Bonnard v. Perryman precept, the reply urged the courtroom to keep away from pre-trial injunctions in defamation instances as they quantity to prior restraint on free speech.“Satire permits the satirist to criticise within the harshest phrases and isn't supposed to hurt status. Whether or not the remark is malicious or inventive can solely be decided at trial,” it mentioned.The corporate additional argued that as a public servant, Wankhede “should not be too thin-skinned” and may face up to honest remark and parody. His petition, it mentioned, was an “try and stifle legit inventive expression.”The Delhi excessive courtroom has listed the matter for listening to on November 10, after directing all events to file written submissions.(With ANI inputs)
