Delhi High Court Returns Sameer Wankhede’s Defamation Suit Against Netflix Web Series Ba***ds of Bollywood
Court says mere online accessibility of a web series in Delhi cannot by itself, constitute a cause of action
Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav, Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court has returned filed by former NCB Zonal Director Sameer Wankhede against a Netflix web series directed by Aryan Khan, Ba***ds of Bollywood, holding that the defamation suit was not maintainable for lack of territorial jurisdiction and declining to examine the merits of the allegations.
The Court also examined the reliance placed heavily on Escorts Ltd. v. Tejpal Singh Sisodia 2019 SCC OnLine Del 7607 to argue that online publication confers jurisdiction wherever content is accessible. The Court however, drew a clear distinction, holding that Tejpal arose in the context of criminal defamation, where considerations of circulation and impact operate differently under the Criminal Procedure Code, 1972. In contrast, the present case concerned a civil defamation, where territorial jurisdiction must be strictly tested under the Civil Procedure Code, 1908. The Court ruled that mere online accessibility of a web series in Delhi cannot by itself, constitute a cause of action, as that would permit forum shopping and render jurisdictional limits meaningless.
Accordingly, a bench of Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav while holding that under Section 19 CPC, jurisdiction depends on where the actual legal wrong is done, not where harm might occur or where proceedings could possibly be influenced, observed, “With the main contesting defendants residing in Mumbai, the plaintiff himself being a resident of Mumbai, and further the wrong, as per the plaintiff’s own plaint, having also occurred at Mumbai, the Merger Rule of Tejpal applies with full force. The jurisdiction to entertain the present suit, lies only with the courts in Mumbai”
Senior Advocate J. Sai Deepak appeared for the plaintiff and Senior Advocates Neeraj Kishan Kaul, Shyel Trehan, Rajiv Nayyar appeared for the defendants.
Wankhede, is an officer of the Indian Revenue Service currently officiating as Additional Director in Directorate General of Taxpayer Services, Chennai under the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs. He had approached the Court alleging that Episode 1 of the web series, released on 18-09-2025, contained a brief segment which, according to him, portrayed a narcotics officer in a defamatory light and was clearly traceable to his role in the Cordelia cruise drug case of October 2021. He claimed the portrayal damaged his reputation and sought damages and injunctive relief.
Series titled “The Ba***ds of Bollywood”, is stated to enjoy wide viewership across India and abroad including through digital dissemination on platforms such as YouTube, Facebook and Instagram.
After hearing detailed submissions and perusing voluminous pleadings and compilations, the High Court held that it could not assume jurisdiction merely because the content was accessible in Delhi. The Court observed that the cause of action, parties, and alleged harm did not establish a sufficient territorial nexus with Delhi to entertain the suit.
Significantly, the Court clarified that it was not expressing any opinion on whether the content was defamatory, as the issue of jurisdiction itself was decisive. Once the forum was found to be inappropriate, the Court held that entering into the merits would be impermissible.
The Court also found that one of the defendants (Defendant No. 6) was added only to artificially create jurisdiction in Delhi. This defendant was not the real publisher, not a proper legal entity as described, and not necessary for the relief sought. The Court called this “clever drafting” meant to bypass jurisdictional rules and held such tactics cannot override settled principles of civil procedure.
“Given the prayers in the instant case, particularly those against defendant no. 3-5, the impleadment of defendant no. 6 neither appears to be proper nor necessary. It is an instance of clever drafting aimed at subverting the rigours of jurisdictional principles, as found in the CPC, and declared by Courts”, the court noted.
In the present matter, the suit had earlier undergone amendments and summons had been issued, but upon a closer jurisdictional examination at a later stage, the High Court concluded that the proceedings could not continue before it and accordingly rejected the plaint.
The order leaves it open to the plaintiff to pursue remedies, if any, before a court of competent jurisdiction, in accordance with law.
Cause Title: Sameer Dnyandev Wankhede v. Red Chillies Entertainments Pvt. Ltd & Ors. [Neutral Citation: 2026:DHC:701]
Plaintiff: J. Sai Deepak, Sr. Advocate with Shaktiki Sharma, Purnima Vashishtha, Jatin Parashar, Rohit Bhagat, Kunal Vats, Aprajita, Tanya Arora and Sanyam, Advocates.
Respondent: Neeraj Kishan Kaul and Shyel Trehan, Sr. Advocates with Janay Jain, Monisha, Mane Bhangale, Bijal Vora, Rhea Rao, Ashutosh Agarwal, Pranav Sarthi, Rohan Poddar, Vidhi Jain, Ayush Raj, Prachi Dhingra, Udit Bajpai and Utkarsh Vatsa, Advocates for D1; Angad Makkar and Raghav Goyal, Advocates for D2. Rajiv Nayyar, Sr. Advocate with Saikrishna Rajagopal, Sidharth Chopra, Sneha Jain and Devrat Joshi, Advocates for D2; Ankit Parhar with Tejpal Singh Rathore, Abhishek Kumar and Sanchi Sethi, Advocates for D3; Mamta R. Jha with Rohan Ahuja and Shruttima, Advocates for D4; Amee Rana with Thejesh Rajendran and Tanuj Sharma, Advocates for D5; Sankalp Udgata with Jeevan Ballav Panda, Advocates.