In Sameer Wankhede Case, Judge Watches 'Ba***ds of Bollywood' In Courtroom

A Delhi High Court judge watched scenes from the episode of the Netflix web series 'Ba***ds of Bollywood' in the courtroom today that IRS officer Sameer Wankhede has objected to. Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav watched the episode after the lawyer representing Wankhede requested him to, stressing that the series "ridicules" his client.

Wankhede, who has filed a defamation suit and sought to take down the series, has contended that the Aryan Khan-directed web series is not a work of fiction but a "personal vendetta disguised as satire", orchestrated to malign his reputation after the 2021 Cordelia Cruise drug case involving Shah Rukh Khan's son. The former Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB) Mumbai Zonal Director has alleged that the character of a government officer depicted in the series was deliberately modelled on him and that the "portrayal was beyond satire".

"In one of the episodes, the character resembles my client. His portrayal is beyond satire. It is shown that he goes after Bollywood celebrities and their children. The person chose to play the character, his physical appearance and words were replicated," said J Sai Deepak, appearing for Wankhede.

"(In the episode) A person is smoking a joint. He states, 'I am not from Bollywood; he is from Bollywood.' So the character goes after him. It shows I'm driven by hunger for publicity," he said.

He said the producer has come after a public servant due to the history between the parties. The series was produced by Red Chillies Entertainment Pvt Ltd, owned by Shah Rukh Khan and his wife Gauri Khan.

"This clip was unnecessary to the flow of content, and the reason is that there was prior animus, exposing me and my family to threat," he said.

After watching the clip, the High Court judge said, "I don't think they are acknowledging that this character is Sameer Wankhede."

"Can you put the faces side by side on the resemblance?" the court asked.

The lawyer then said that they have "placed on record enough literature to show there was innuendo". "This is vendetta passing off as fiction," he said.

Earlier, Red Chillies Entertainment told the court that Wankhede had no case seeking an interim injunction on the series as it is a work of satire.

"Nowhere in the impugned clip or in the said series is the plaintiff (Wankhede) named, and the series carries a disclaimer clarifying that it is a work of fiction," it said.

Wankhede's lawyer, however, claimed that the makers of the web series were hiding behind a disclaimer.

"The disclaimer is of no consequence. The proof of pudding is how people consume it. If they wanted to show how he (the protagonist of the show) lands the role, they could have shown the arrest, but the specific inter-loop is that my client is shown to be ridiculed."

The lawyer also said that the "defence of satire is not absolute in the case".

"You have exposed my department and my family. You have taken potshots at me in my professional capacity," Wankhede's lawyer told the court.

The single bench of Justice Kaurav then asked the production house to explain whether it could portray Wankhede in such a manner under the guise of artistic freedom.

"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 the guise of artistic freedom, you cannot depict," the judge said.

Lawyer Neeraj Kishan Kaul, appearing for Red Chillies, said that he will address the query.

The matter will be heard next on November 17.

Red Chillies earlier claimed that the content constitutes artistic speech and satire protected under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India and that any prior restraint or post facto censorship of such expression can only be justified under Article 19(2).

On the content of the series, Red Chillies had said that the show touches upon various controversies in the Bollywood industry, such as nepotism, paparazzi culture, adultery, and struggles faced by newcomers with undertones of satirical elements and parody.

"It is also submitted that even prior to the release of 'Ba***ds of Bollywood', the plaintiff was already the subject of public ridicule and adverse commentary," the reply said. The firm said it was abundantly clear that the officer's reputation was not unblemished and he had come to the court with "unclean hands." Admittedly, the plaintiff is a "public official", and as such, must not be overly thin-skinned, it said.

Deepak, while insisting that this was a defamation case, said that Sameer Wankhede has been a respected IRS officer for the past 17 years.

Wankhede has sued Red Chillies and Netflix for defamation and sought Rs 2 crore in damages, which he wants donated to the Tata Memorial Cancer Hospital for cancer patients.