IRS officer Sameer Wankhede told the Delhi High Court that Shah Rukh Khan’s Red Chillies Entertainment unfairly mocked him in the Netflix series ‘Ba**ds of Bollywood’*, arguing that the defence of satire is not absolute. The Court has sought responses and will hear the case again on November 17.
New Delhi: IRS officer Sameer Wankhede told the Delhi High Court on Monday that the defence of satire is not absolute and that Shah Rukh Khan’s production house, Red Chillies Entertainment, has unfairly targeted a public servant through its Netflix web series “Ba**ds of Bollywood.”
The matter was heard by Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav. Wankhede has filed a defamation suit seeking removal of scenes from the show which he says make fun of him. His counsel argued,
“Producer is big giant. They have come after a public servant.”
Sameer Wankhede is known for his role as the Zonal Director of the Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB) in 2021, when he arrested Aryan Khan, son of actor Shah Rukh Khan, in a drug case under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS Act). Aryan Khan was later cleared of all charges.
In his defamation plea, Wankhede claimed that one of the characters in the Netflix series closely resembles him and that the scene “targets and ridicules” him.
He has demanded Rs 2 crore as compensation from Red Chillies Entertainment, owned by Shah Rukh Khan and his wife Gauri Khan, and from Netflix.
He has also sought the immediate removal of the allegedly defamatory scenes and a court order preventing the publication or broadcast of any similar content about him in the future.
Earlier, the High Court had issued summons to Red Chillies Entertainment, Netflix, Google, X Corp (formerly Twitter), and Meta, asking them to respond to the defamation suit.
In its written reply, Red Chillies Entertainment said that Wankhede’s image had already been the subject of public criticism and negative attention long before the release of “Ba**ds of Bollywood.”
The production house mentioned the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) case against Wankhede for alleged criminal conspiracy and extortion under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Prevention of Corruption Act.
Red Chillies argued that the show is a form of satire and parody, which is protected under the constitutional right to freedom of expression and therefore cannot be considered defamatory.
Senior Advocate J Sai Deepak, representing Wankhede, disagreed and said that his client had an exemplary track record but was being mocked due to the past history involving Aryan Khan.
He stated that the show’s makers acted out of malice and vendetta, saying that
“This is not some wayward officer. They say he anyway had a terrible reputation. The trouble began with Aryan Khan. Ever since this matter has been taken up, it has gotten spotlight and attention. It is being reported selectively.”
Deepak then presented scenes from the web series in the courtroom, pointing out the similarities between Wankhede and the character shown.
He asked the judge to watch the episode privately in chambers, saying,
“I know what happens in the times of live streaming.”
However, the Court chose to watch the clips in the courtroom itself.
Deepak further argued that the presence of a disclaimer at the beginning of the show was meaningless. He said,
“Disclaimer has lost its value. There are judgments to show who the content refers to. The disclaimer is of no consequence. The proof of pudding is how people consume it.”
After reviewing the scenes, the Court observed,
“I don’t think they are acknowledging that this character is Sameer Wankhede.”
In response, Deepak maintained that there was enough evidence linking the character to Wankhede. He said,
“We have placed on record enough literature to show there was innuendo, third party publications, spoof has been placed on record. This is vendetta passing off as fiction.”
He accused the producers of using a “sly approach” and hiding behind a disclaimer, saying,
“The defence of satire is not absolute. You have exposed my department and my family. You have taken potshots at me in my professional capacity.”
He also said that removing the offending scenes would not affect the overall storyline, emphasizing that the content was not essential to the series.
The Court then asked the production house to clarify whether artistic freedom allows such portrayals. The judge questioned,
“What is the procedure followed and what happens when, in this case the problem is that you are depicting me so you either frankly say it was Wankhede but under guise of artistic freedom you cannot depict.”
Senior Advocate Neeraj Kishan Kaul, appearing for Red Chillies Entertainment, told the Court that he would respond to the query in detail. The Court has listed the matter for the next hearing on November 17.
Case Title:
Sameer Dnyandev Wankhede vs. Red Chillies Entertainments Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
Read Live Coverage:
Click Here to Read Our Reports on Sameer Wankhede
