In a significant judgment clarifying the law on online defamation, OTT content, and territorial jurisdiction, the Delhi High Court has dismissed a civil defamation suit filed by IRS and Customs officer Sameer Dnyandev Wankhede against Red Chillies Entertainment, Netflix, and social media platforms over the web series “The Ba**ds of Bollywood”*, holding that the Court lacked territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit.
Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav ruled that mere online availability of allegedly defamatory content does not mean defamation occurs everywhere, and cautioned against permitting plaintiffs to invoke jurisdiction of distant courts solely on the basis of internet accessibility.
The suit arose from Episode 1 of “The Ba**ds of Bollywood”*, a series released in September 2025, which allegedly portrayed events connected to the high-profile 2021 cruise ship drug seizure conducted by the Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB), when Sameer Wankhede was serving as its Mumbai Zonal Director.
Claiming that certain scenes and references in the series were false, malicious, and defamatory, Wankhede approached the Delhi High Court seeking permanent injunctions, damages, and directions for removal of content, asserting that his reputation as a Customs and IRS officer had been harmed nationwide, including in Delhi.
Court’s Core Observation: Defamation Is Not Created by Uploading Content
At the heart of the judgment lies the Court’s emphatic clarification of when and where defamation actually occurs in the digital age.
The Court observed that defamation is not committed by the act of uploading content online, but only when such content is read, watched, or consumed by a third party who knows the plaintiff, resulting in reputational harm.
“A post on the internet which has not been accessed or read is like a defamatory letter in a sealed envelope. No wrong is done until the seal is broken and the content is read,” the Court observed.
According to the Court, online accessibility alone cannot constitute publication for the purposes of defamation, and a plaintiff must establish that the content was actually consumed by relevant third parties in the forum where jurisdiction is claimed.
The High Court further held that defamation can only occur where the plaintiff enjoys a reputation, since reputational injury presupposes recognition by others.
It explained that a Customs or IRS officer’s reputation is ordinarily centered at their place of residence or posting, and unless specific pleadings demonstrate that reputational harm occurred elsewhere, courts cannot assume jurisdiction merely because the content is viewable online.
The Court noted that allowing such claims would reduce jurisdictional safeguards to a fiction, enabling plaintiffs to sue in any corner of the country.
In a pointed observation, the Court warned that unchecked online defamation claims could encourage forum shopping, libel tourism, and harassment of defendants, particularly in cases involving OTT platforms and digital media.
It held that Section 19 of the Code of Civil Procedure does not grant an unrestricted choice of forum, and that where the defendant’s place of business and the place of alleged harm overlap, the suit must be filed there alone.
“Jurisdiction cannot be founded on convenience or choice. It must arise from a real and substantial connection with the alleged wrong,” the Court emphasized.
Importantly, the High Court clarified that it was not adjudicating on the merits of the allegations, nor was it examining whether the portrayal in “The Ba**ds of Bollywood”* crossed the line between artistic freedom and defamation.
Since jurisdiction is a threshold issue, the Court held that it would be improper to enter into questions of free speech, artistic expression, or reputational harm when the suit itself was not maintainable before the forum.
Case Details
Case Title: Sameer Dnyandev Wankhede Versus Red Chillies Entertainments Pvt. Ltd.
Case No.: CS (OS) 698/2025, I.A. No. 24508/2025, I.A. No. 24510/2025 & I.A. No. 28922/2025
Date: 29/01/2026
Counsel For Petitioner: J. Sai Deepak, Sr. Advocate
Counsel For Respondent: Angad Makkar
Read More: No Excise Duty Payable on Export Goods Damaged in Transit Before Shipment: CESTAT
