New Delhi: Red Chillies Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. has filed its detailed reply before the Delhi High Court opposing Indian Revenue Service (IRS) officer and former NCB Mumbai zonal director Sameer Wankhede’s plea seeking injunction against the Netflix series ‘The Ba**ads of Bollywood’.
The Shah Rukh Khan-owned production house has termed the defamation suit as “completely false, untenable in law and devoid of merit”.
The reply argues that the web series is “a work of situational satire” and does not name or depict Wankhede, nor does it contain any defamatory content. The affidavit in support of the reply is sworn by Venkatesh Mysore, authorized signatory of Red Chillies.
Initially, Red Chillies challenged the maintainability of the suit, saying that the Delhi High Court lacked territorial jurisdiction as the key defendants, including Wankhede and Netflix, are both based in Mumbai. It is submitted that jurisdiction cannot be conferred by subsequent amendments to the plaint and “the jurisdictional defect at the outset renders the proceedings infructuous.”
The production house has also countered Wankhede’s claim of an “impeccable record”, citing a CBI FIR lodged against him in May 2023 for alleged extortion and corruption. The reply states that “the existence of the FIR and the need for interim protection weakens the claim of the plaintiff to have an impeccable reputation.”
It further states that Wankhede was the subject of “public ridicule and adverse comment” even before the release of the series and therefore cannot claim fresh reputational damage.
Red Chillies say that “The Bads of Bollywood” is a satirical portrayal of the film industry, addressing issues such as nepotism, paparazzi culture and celebrity controversies. The reply emphasizes that the series uses forms of artistic expression protected by humour, exaggeration and parody under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.
The company says the brief scene that Wankhede has objected to – which is just one minute and forty-eight seconds long – “depicts only an overzealous officer” and does not contain any defamatory reference to the plaintiff.
Citing established precedents, North invokes the Bonnard v. Perryman doctrine, warning against pre-trial injunctions in defamation cases because they amount to a prior restriction on free speech. It states, “Satire allows the satirist to criticize in the harshest terms and is not intended to offend or damage reputation. Whether the comment is satirical or malicious can only be determined after testing.”
Red Chillies has also argued that Wankhede, being a public servant, has to face public scrutiny. “Those who fill public offices should not be too thinly veiled. A person whose conduct has been the subject of official investigation cannot claim special protection from fair comment or satire.”
The response states that Wankhede’s petition is an “attempt to suppress legitimate artistic expression” and should be dismissed on the grounds of impermissibility.
The company argues that removing the controversial clip would distort the narrative flow of the series, which is streaming on Netflix from September 18, 2025. The company argues that any alleged injury to Wankhede can be compensated by damages, while an injunction would “cause irreparable prejudice to creative freedom and set a dangerous precedent.”
The Delhi High Court, which directed all parties to file written submissions, has listed the matter for hearing before Justice Purushindra Kumar Kaurav on November 10.
On the previous date, the court had issued notice to Netflix, Red Chillies and others on Wankhede’s plea seeking permanent injunction and damages of Rs 2 crore for alleged defamation.
Add Zee News as favorite source