Published on: October 30, 2025 | 5:00 PM IST
Red Chillies Entertainment Pvt. Ltd., the production house owned by Bollywood superstar Shah Rukh Khan, has filed a detailed response before the Delhi High Court opposing the plea filed by Indian Revenue Service (IRS) officer and former NCB Mumbai Zonal Director Sameer Wankhede. Wankhede had sought an injunction against the Netflix web series ‘The Ba*ds of Bollywood’**, directed by Aryan Khan, alleging defamation. Red Chillies, however, has maintained that the series is a work of satire and contains no defamatory content.
Red Chillies’ Reply
In its reply, Red Chillies described Wankhede’s defamation claim as “wholly misconceived, untenable in law, and devoid of merit.” The production house argued that the series is a work of situational satire and does not name or depict Wankhede, nor does it contain any material that could reasonably be considered defamatory.
The affidavit in support of the reply was sworn by Venkatesh Mysore, an authorized signatory of Red Chillies. The production house also challenged the territorial jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court, noting that both Wankhede and the principal defendants, including Netflix, are based in Mumbai. Red Chillies argued that jurisdiction cannot be conferred retroactively by later amendments to the plaint, and asserted that the “jurisdictional defect at inception renders the proceedings a nullity.”
Wankhede’s Claim Challenged
Red Chillies contested Wankhede’s assertion of having an “unblemished record,” citing the CBI FIR registered against him in May 2023 for alleged extortion and corruption. The reply argued that the existence of the FIR and the need for interim legal protection undermine claims of a pristine reputation. It also pointed out that Wankhede had already been subjected to public scrutiny and adverse commentary prior to the release of the series, and therefore cannot claim fresh reputational harm from the show.
Nature of the Series
The production house emphasized that The Ba**ds of Bollywood* is a satirical depiction of the film industry, highlighting issues such as nepotism, paparazzi culture, and celebrity controversies. Red Chillies stressed that the series employs humour, exaggeration, and parody, all of which are protected forms of artistic expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution.
Specifically addressing the clip objected to by Wankhede, which lasts one minute and forty-eight seconds, Red Chillies stated that it “merely portrays an overzealous officer” and does not contain any defamatory reference to him. The reply cited legal precedents, including Bonnard v. Perryman, cautioning against pre-trial injunctions in defamation cases as they amount to prior restraint on free speech. It added:
“Satire allows the satirist to criticise in the harshest of terms and is not intended to disparage or harm reputation. Whether the comment is satirical or malicious can only be determined at trial.”
Public Servants and Scrutiny
Red Chillies also argued that as a public servant, Wankhede is required to withstand public scrutiny. The reply contended that individuals in public office cannot claim protection from fair comment or satire, especially if their conduct has been the subject of official inquiry. The production house characterized Wankhede’s plea as an attempt to stifle legitimate artistic expression and urged the court to reject it on grounds of hypersensitivity.
Concerns Over Injunction
The company further argued that removing the contested clip would distort the narrative flow of the series, which has been streaming on Netflix since September 18, 2025. Red Chillies submitted that any alleged injury to Wankhede could be addressed through monetary damages, whereas an injunction would cause irreparable prejudice to creative freedom and set a dangerous precedent for censorship in India.
Next Steps
The Delhi High Court, which had earlier issued notices to Netflix, Red Chillies, and others regarding Wankhede’s plea seeking a permanent injunction and ₹2 crore in damages, has directed all parties to file written submissions. The matter is listed for hearing on November 10, 2025, before Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav.
Context and Implications
This legal battle underscores the ongoing tension between freedom of expression in creative works and claims of defamation by public officials. Red Chillies’ response reinforces the principle that satire and parody are protected under law, even when they touch upon sensitive topics or public figures.
By challenging both jurisdiction and the merits of the defamation claim, Red Chillies aims to safeguard creative freedom and resist what it calls a preemptive attempt to censor artistic content. The court’s decision could set a significant precedent for how web series, satirical content, and depictions of public figures are treated under Indian defamation law.
As the matter moves forward, all eyes will be on the Delhi High Court’s interpretation of the balance between artistic expression and reputational rights, and the outcome could have far-reaching implications for streaming content and satire in India.
Leave a Reply