New Delhi: The Delhi High Court on Tuesday reserved its verdict in a high-profile defamation suit filed by former Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB) officer Sameer Wankhede against Bollywood actor Shah Rukh Khan’s Red Chillies Entertainment and the streaming platform Netflix. The case revolves around allegedly defamatory content in the series ‘Ba*ds of Bollywood’**, created, co-written, and directed by Aryan Khan, Shah Rukh Khan’s son. Wankhede has sought directions to remove specific portions of the series from the streaming platform, claiming that they portray a character closely resembling him in appearance and mannerisms.

The controversy stems from a 2021 NCB raid on a cruise ship in which Aryan Khan and several others were arrested. Wankhede, then heading the investigation, was subsequently involved in departmental and legal proceedings, culminating in the exoneration of Aryan Khan and the others by the NCB in 2022. The series, however, allegedly includes content that Wankhede claims portrays him in a negative light, linking him to events reminiscent of the cruise raid.

In his petition, Wankhede specifically pointed to Episode 1, timestamp 32:02 to 33:50, which features a character said to be modeled on him. His legal team argued that this portrayal defames him and harms his reputation. The petitioner’s counsel, Senior Advocate Jai Sai Deepak, submitted that the series casts Wankhede in poor light, highlighting negative attributes and conduct, thereby amounting to defamation.

The defendants, Red Chillies Entertainment and Netflix, argued against the maintainability of the suit in Delhi. Their lawyers contended that the court lacked territorial jurisdiction, as Wankhede’s residence is not in Delhi, and Red Chillies’ registered office is in Mumbai. Neeraj Kishan Kaul, representing Red Chillies, emphasized that the series is a fictional story set during a Bollywood success party and does not recreate the events of the Cordelia cruise raid. Meanwhile, Rajiv Nayyar, representing Netflix, argued that the alleged resemblance between Wankhede and the character does not establish malice or intent to defame, and that mere prior association between Aryan Khan and Wankhede cannot serve as a basis for content removal.

Wankhede’s counsel countered that the principal harm caused by the content occurred in Delhi. Deepak highlighted several factors to justify Delhi as the appropriate forum, including the fact that departmental proceedings against Wankhede are based in the city, he has relatives and friends residing in Delhi, and local media outlets actively sought his comments and interviews following the release of the series. Furthermore, he noted that Red Chillies and Netflix had engaged in substantial promotional activity in Delhi, amplifying the reach of the allegedly defamatory content within the city.

Deepak also submitted additional arguments regarding admissions by the actor portraying the character resembling Wankhede. According to the senior advocate, the actor allegedly acknowledged representing Wankhede in the performance, which could be interpreted as confirming the depiction was indeed based on him. “The actor who did the job told me that he was representing me. Media houses had drawn this connection before I even raised it,” Deepak stated. “None of the publications portray me in a positive light; the content targets me and depicts me poorly.”

During the proceedings, the court considered two principal issues for deliberation. The first was whether the suit is prima facie maintainable in Delhi, taking into account factors such as the location of harm, the reach of the content, and the promotional activities of the defendants. The second was whether the content, when viewed in its entirety, qualifies as defamatory against Wankhede.

Red Chillies and Netflix emphasized the fictional and satirical nature of the series, arguing that artistic expression and creative liberties protect the content from claims of defamation. They maintained that the series, despite its contextual overlap with real-life events, does not directly identify Wankhede and is intended as a work of fiction. The defense also questioned the legal grounds for seeking a take-down order, asserting that such an action could impinge upon freedom of expression under Indian law.

The bench, led by Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav, heard arguments from both sides over several sessions, examining whether the allegations of defamation have substantive merit or if the suit is largely speculative. Both sides presented detailed legal and factual submissions, including references to the series’ content, its context, the depiction of characters, and the scope of jurisdictional applicability.

The court’s verdict, now reserved, is expected to hinge on two critical determinations: first, whether the Delhi High Court has territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit, and second, whether the content in the series is, in fact, defamatory when considered in its entirety. The decision could have far-reaching implications, not only for Sameer Wankhede and the defendants but also for the Indian entertainment industry and the regulation of content on OTT platforms.

Legal experts note that the case highlights the delicate balance between freedom of artistic expression and protection of individual reputation, especially in the context of dramatizations of events involving real-life figures. If the court finds in favor of Wankhede, it could set a precedent for the ability of public officials and private individuals to seek content removal from OTT platforms based on perceived negative portrayal. Conversely, a ruling favoring Red Chillies and Netflix could reinforce the protections afforded to creators and platforms producing fictionalized or satirical content.

In recent years, the growth of OTT platforms and the popularity of web series in India has led to an increasing number of disputes concerning the depiction of real-life events and personalities. Wankhede’s suit is among several high-profile cases testing the boundaries of defamation law in the digital age. The court’s decision, expected in the coming weeks, will be closely watched by media lawyers, content creators, and civil society advocates for freedom of expression.

The outcome could also influence the approach of OTT platforms in India regarding content warnings, disclaimers, and legal vetting processes, especially when depicting controversial events or public figures. Legal analysts suggest that the judgment may prompt platforms to proactively address potential defamation claims to avoid lengthy litigation and reputational damage.

As of now, both Red Chillies Entertainment and Netflix await the court’s ruling, while Wankhede continues to maintain that the series has caused tangible harm to his reputation and professional standing. The case underscores the evolving intersection of law, media, and personal rights in India’s rapidly expanding digital entertainment landscape.