Red Chillies Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. has filed its detailed reply before the Delhi High Court opposing the plea of Indian Revenue Service (IRS) officer and former NCB Mumbai Zonal Director Sameer Wankhede seeking an injunction against the Netflix series ‘The Ba***ds of Bollywood’.
 
The Shah Rukh Khan-owned production house has described the defamation suit as “wholly misconceived, 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 material. The affidavit supporting the reply has been sworn to by Venkatesh Mysore, authorised signatory of Red Chillies.
 
At the outset, Red Chillies challenged the maintainability of the suit, asserting that the Delhi High Court lacks territorial jurisdiction as both Wankhede and the principal defendants, including Netflix, are based in Mumbai. It is submitted that jurisdiction cannot be conferred by later amendments to the plaint and that the “jurisdictional defect at inception renders the proceedings a nullity.”
 
The production house has also contested Wankhede’s claim of an “unblemished record,” referring to the CBI FIR registered against him in May 2023 for alleged extortion and corruption. The reply states that “the existence of the FIR and the necessity for interim protection undermine the Plaintiff’s claim of an unblemished reputation.”
 
It further points out that Wankhede was already the subject of “public ridicule and adverse commentary” prior to the series’ release and hence cannot claim fresh reputational damage.
 
Red Chillies maintains that “The Ba*ds of Bollywood” is a satirical depiction of the film industry, addressing issues such as nepotism, paparazzi culture, and celebrity controversies. The reply stresses that the series uses humor, exaggeration, and parody protected forms of artistic expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.
 
The company submits that the brief scene objected to by Wankhede – lasting only one minute and forty-eight seconds “merely portrays an overzealous officer” and carries no defamatory reference to the plaintiff.
 
Quoting established precedents, the reply invokes the Bonnard v. Perryman principle, cautioning against pre-trial injunctions in defamation cases as they amount to prior restraint on free speech. It adds, “Satire allows the satirist to criticise in the harshest of terms and is not intended to disparage or harm reputation. Whether the comment is satirical or malicious can only be determined at trial.”
 
Red Chillies has also argued that Wankhede, being a public servant, must withstand public scrutiny. “Those who fill public positions must not be too thin-skinned. A person whose conduct has been the subject of official inquiry cannot claim special protection from fair comment or satire.”
 
The reply adds that Wankhede’s plea is an “attempt to stifle legitimate artistic expression” and should be rejected on grounds of hypersensitivity.
 
The company contends that removing the impugned clip would distort the narrative flow of the series, which has been streaming on Netflix since September 18, 2025. It argues that any alleged injury to Wankhede is compensable by damages, whereas 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 on November 10 before Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav.
 
On the previous date, the Court had issued notice to Netflix, Red Chillies, and others on Wankhede’s plea seeking a permanent injunction and Rs 2 crore in damages for alleged defamation.