In a tense courtroom hearing before Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav, the Delhi High Court witnessed a high-stakes clash as IRS officer Sameer Wankhede took on Netflix and Red Chillies Entertainment over his alleged depiction in the web series ‘Ba*ds of Bollywood’, produced by Shah Rukh Khan and Gauri Khan’s company.

Wankhede, represented by his counsel J Sai Deepak, argued that using satire does not automatically protect creators from liability, especially when “Producer is big giant.”

Background:

They have come after a public servant," the counsel argued before the bench. The dispute revolves around a scene in a web series featuring a character that closely resembles Wankhede, allegedly portraying him in a mocking manner. Wankhede, who came into the national spotlight in 2021 for arresting Aryan Khan, son of Shah Rukh Khan, during an anti-drug operation—(charges from which Aryan was later cleared)—has now sought ₹2 crore in damages and the removal of the disputed scenes.

Along with Netflix and Red Chillies, tech companies Google, X Corp, and Meta have also been asked to respond for sharing defamatory content. Wankhede has also sought a court order to stop any future publication of objectionable material related to him.

Defence’s Contention :

In its written reply, Red Chillies Entertainment argued that Wankhede’s reputation had already faced public criticism and controversy before the web series was released.

The company referred to the ongoing CBI case accusing Wankhede of criminal conspiracy and extortion under various laws, and claimed that the series was “a form of satire and parody,” which is a protected expression and therefore not defamatory.

Petitioner’s Counter:

However, advocate J Sai Deepak, appearing for Wankhede, countered that Wankhede has an exemplary track record but is being ridiculed because of the past conflict between the parties. He further argued that the series was motivated by malice and intended as an act of revenge.

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 stated, further urging the Court to examine the relevant scenes firsthand. He also argued that disclaimers offered no real protection, saying, "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 contested footage, Justice Kaurav observed, "I don’t think they are acknowledging that this character is Sameer Wankhede."

Nevertheless, Deepak insisted, "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 disclaimers as a cover while continuing to make indirect attacks against Wankhede.

He continued, "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 argued that the disputed scenes could be removed without affecting the overall story of the show.

The court then addressed the main issue, asking the defendants to explain whether artistic freedom could be stretched to allow such portrayals, saying, "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," adding further pressure on Red Chillies Entertainment's counsel, Senior Advocate Neeraj Kishan Kaul, to explain the legal limits of creative freedom.

The case is scheduled to continue on November 17, where these arguments will be further addressed.

Case Details: Sameer Dnyandev Wankhede Vs. Red Chillies Entertainments Pvt. Ltd. & Ors].