The Delhi High Court summoned Mehul Choksi, a businessman linked to Gitanjali Gems, to show up in person for the ‘Bad Boy Billionaires’ case against the Netflix series. Mehul Choksi’s plea to pre-screen the Netflix docuseries was previously denied by a single judge bench, citing that a writ petition for the enforcement of a private right was not maintainable. The court points out that Choksi isn’t an Indian citizen, lives outside India, and has cases pending here. They warn that if he loses his appeal, he may not be able to pay any fines.
New Delhi: The Delhi High Court has summoned fugitive businessman and Gitanjali Gems promoter Mehul Choski to appear physically for the hearing regarding his case against the Netflix series ‘Bad Boy Billionaires’.
The single-judge bench had previously denied relief to Mehul Choksi, asserting that a writ petition for the enforcement of a private right was not maintainable.
Mehul Choksi’s plea aimed to pre-screen the Netflix docuseries, arguing that he has been unjustly accused of various crimes in India and is entitled to the presumption of innocence, a fair trial, and protection of reputation. He specifically objected to a two-minute segment in the documentary series, released in October 2020, that portrayed him negatively.
Netflix countered Choksi’s plea by asserting that internet video streaming platforms fall outside the realm of regulation, suggesting that his recourse should involve filing a civil suit.
Highlighting Choksi’s non-Indian citizenship and lack of residency in India, the High Court pointed out the multiple pending proceedings against him in the country. It cautioned that if Choksi’s appeal failed and he incurred costs, there would be no viable means for the recovery of such amounts.
READ ALSO: First Conviction in Bandit Phoolan Devi’s Gang Massacre After 43 Years
On February 13, the court was informed that the amount was not deposited by Choksi. However, Choksi’s counsel said that such an order meant that the court had in essence prejudged the outcome of the appeal. “He is like a ghost…He is not here,” remarked the high court, adding that Choksi had still engaged the counsel for litigation. “If you have not deposited then why should we hear it? ”
the high court questioned.