Delhi High Court: In a suit instituted seeking permanent and mandatory injunctions, declarations, and damages on the ground of alleged defamation arising out of content contained in Aryan Khan’s Netflix series titled “The Ba***ds of Bollywood,” a Single-Judge Bench of Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav, J., held that the suit was not maintainable for want of territorial jurisdiction under Section 19 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) and directed the plaint to be returned to the plaintiff for presentation before the competent court having jurisdiction.
Factual Matrix
The plaintiff, an officer of the Indian Revenue Service, was earlier posted as Zonal Director, Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB), Mumbai. He asserted that between 2013 and 2021 he received various awards and had an “unblemished and distinguished record of service” in combating organized crime and narcotics trafficking.
While serving with the NCB, he conducted a search and seizure operation on 02-10-2021 on a cruise ship operated by Cordelia Cruises, during which Aryan Khan and others were arrested under the NDPS Act. According to the plaintiff, after this arrest, “a series of malicious and unfounded allegations were orchestrated against him by certain third parties, with a view to exert pressure and compromise the investigations.”
Thereafter, a web series titled “The Ba***ds of Bollywood” was directed by Aryan Khan and produced by defendant 1, Red Chillies Entertainments (P) Ltd. (a company promoted by his parents). The series was released on 18-09-2025 and made available for public viewing on the platform of defendant 2, with digital dissemination through social media platforms. The plaintiff alleged that Episode 1 (between 32:02 and 33:50 minutes) contained “false, malicious and defamatory” material concerning him.
He claimed that he became aware of the content through calls and messages from friends, family and professional acquaintances and that the content had lowered his reputation “in the eyes of his relatives, colleagues and society at large.” On this basis, he filed a suit in the Delhi High Court seeking permanent injunction and damages.
Procedural History
The suit was first listed on 26-09-2025, when the Court noted that jurisdiction had not been clearly pleaded. An application for amendment of the plaint was allowed, reserving the defendants’ objections to maintainability.
The defendants raised a preliminary objection that the Delhi High Court lacked territorial jurisdiction. The Court observed that since the plaintiff had failed to cross “the threshold of jurisdiction,” it was unnecessary to examine the merits of the defamation claim.
Moot Points
-
Whether the Delhi High Court had territorial jurisdiction under Section 19 of the CPC to entertain the suit for defamation?
-
Whether the plaintiff could invoke Delhi jurisdiction on the ground that the allegedly defamatory content was accessible and had effects in Delhi, despite the defendants being based in Mumbai and the alleged wrong also occurring there?
Parties’ Contentions
The defendants contended that jurisdiction must exist on the date of institution and could not be created later by amendment. The main contesting defendants were situated in Mumbai and the plaintiff himself was a resident of Mumbai though posted in Chennai. Relying on Escorts Ltd. v. Tejpal Singh Sisodia, 2019 SCC OnLine Del 7607, it was argued that where the wrong and the defendant’s residence coincide, the suit must be filed there and not elsewhere. The impleadment of defendant no. 6 was alleged to be a device for forum shopping.
However, the plaintiff argued that the series was accessible in Delhi and that his reputation had been harmed in Delhi, including in the eyes of senior colleagues. It was submitted that his service under the Ministry of Finance and pending proceedings in Delhi would be adversely affected. According to him, “wrong done” under Section 19 CPC included the effect of the wrong, and therefore Delhi courts had jurisdiction.
Court’s Analysis
At the outset, the Court found that the controversy lies in the larger constitutional tension between free expression and reputational harm and stated that “the strained relationship between free speech and offensive speech is as old as the idea of speech itself.” The Court noted that while offensive speech may fall within the ambit of artistic freedom, such freedom is constantly tested against the law of defamation and the individual’s right to reputation. However, the Court made it clear that it was “not necessary to step into the comparative merits of the allegations/facts arising before this Court” because the suit failed at the threshold of jurisdiction
The Court emphasised that before granting or refusing any interim relief, it was incumbent upon the Court to first determine whether the suit itself was maintainable. It observed that “it would be unwise to subject parties to an action, including defending interlocutory applications, which ought to have been instituted before another forum.” Jurisdiction, therefore, had to be examined as a preliminary issue.
Interpreting Section 19 CPC, the Court reiterated that in a defamation action, the “wrong” is not committed merely by uploading or broadcasting material but by its communication to third parties who know the plaintiff and in whose estimation the plaintiff’s reputation is lowered. Relying on the principles laid down in Tejpal, the Court explained that the wrong of defamation through the internet is done “not when the defamatory content is made available or accessible, but when such content is read, watched or consumed by a third party knowing the plaintiff.”
The Court further underlined that Section 19 does not permit a plaintiff to choose any forum at will merely because content is accessible there. It warned that an unqualified reading of the provision would open the door to forum shopping and “libel tourism”, a result which the statute never contemplated. The Court stressed that the expression “wrong done” includes not only the act but also its effect; nevertheless, such effect must be real and not speculative.
The Court emphasised on two controlling principles derived from Tejpal (Supra)
-
Merger Rule: Where the place where the wrong is done and the place where the defendant resides coincide, the plaintiff has no option and must sue there.
-
Maximum Wrong Rule: Where wrong is spread across several jurisdictions, the suit should ordinarily be filed where maximum wrong is done, generally the plaintiff’s place of residence or registered office.
Applying these principles, the Court noted that the plaintiff himself pleaded that the content was published “throughout the country,” which necessarily included Mumbai. The Court found the suggestion that a court or authority might be swayed by watching a television series as “per se speculative in nature and even otherwise, it does not reflect any wrong done.”
On impleadment of Defendant 6, the Court found that it was not a proper legal entity and had no material role in the production or publication of the content. The Court asserted that Defendant 6’s impleadment appeared to be an attempt to wriggle out of the conditions provided for in Tejpal (Supra)and amounted to “clever drafting aimed at subverting the rigours of jurisdictional principles.”
Court’s Decision
The Court held that the suit was not maintainable for want of territorial jurisdiction. Since the plaintiff himself pleaded publication and effect across the country, including Mumbai where the principal defendants were situated, the Delhi High Court lacked jurisdiction.
The Court directed the plaint to be returned to the plaintiff for presentation before the competent court having jurisdiction.
[Sameer Dnyandev Wankhede v. Red Chillies Entertainments (P) Ltd., CS (OS) 698/2025, I.A. No. 24508/2025, I.A. No. 24510/2025 & I.A. No. 28922/2025, Decided on 29-01-2026]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
Mr. J. Sai Deepak, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Shaktiki Sharma, Ms. Purnima Vashishtha, Mr. Jatin Parashar, Mr. Rohit Bhagat, Mr. Kunal Vats, Ms. Aprajita, Ms. Tanya Arora and Mr. Sanyam, Counsel for the Plaintiff
Mr. Neeraj Kishan Kaul and Ms. Shyel Trehan, Sr. Advocates with Mr. Janay Jain, Ms. Monisha, Mane Bhangale, Ms. Bijal Vora Ms. Rhea Rao, Mr. Ashutosh Agarwal, Mr. Pranav Sarthi, Mr. Rohan Poddar, Ms. Vidhi Jain, Mr. Ayush Raj, Ms. Prachi Dhingra, Mr. Udit Bajpai and Mr. Utkarsh Vatsa, Counsel for the Defendant 1
Mr. Rajiv Nayyar, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Saikrishna Rajagopal, Mr. Sidharth Chopra, Ms. Sneha Jain, Mr. Devrat Joshi, Mr. Angad Makkar and Mr. Raghav Goyal, Counsel for the Defendant 2
Mr. Ankit Parhar with Mr. Tejpal Singh Rathore, Mr. Abhishek Kumar and Ms. Sanchi Sethi, Counsel for the Defendant 3
Ms. Mamta R. Jha with Mr. Rohan Ahuja and Mshruttima, Counsel for the Defendant 4
Ms. Amee Rana with Mr. Thejesh Rajendran and Mr. Tanuj Sharma, Counsel for the Defendant 5
Mr. Sankalp Udgata with Mr. Jeevan Ballav Panda, Counsel for the Defendant 6