The Delhi High Court on 29 January 2026 dismissed a high-profile defamation suit filed by former Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB) officer Sameer Wankhede against Netflix and Shah Rukh Khan’s Red Chillies Entertainment over his alleged portrayal in the web series The Ba**ds of Bollywood*, written and directed by Aryan Khan.
The court ruled it lacked territorial jurisdiction to entertain the matter and returned the plaint, telling Wankhede to approach a court of competent jurisdiction, likely in Mumbai. Wankhede has maintained that the series contains defamatory elements that harm his personal reputation and diminishes public confidence in law enforcement, and he had sought ₹2 crore in damages earmarked for donation to Tata Memorial Cancer Hospital. The dismissal removes a key legal obstacle for the makers and distributors of the series, allowing it to continue streaming pending any fresh legal challenge in an appropriate forum.
Dismissed on Jurisdiction Grounds
On Thursday, a bench of the Delhi High Court presided over by Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav delivered a concise yet decisive order, emphasising that the court did not have the territorial jurisdiction to hear Wankhede’s defamation plea.
The judge noted that although the series is accessible and viewed across the country, the cause of action and key connections to the parties lie outside Delhi, particularly in Mumbai where the plaintiff resides and where Red Chillies Entertainment is registered.
Wankhede’s petition challenged what he described as specific depictions in The Ba**ds of Bollywood*, including a character portrayed in the first episode who utters the national slogan “Satyamev Jayate” and then makes an obscene gesture, which he argued is not only derogatory to his image but also potentially violates the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971.
His legal team, led by senior advocate Jai Sai Deepak, contended that the alleged reputational harm was most acutely felt in Delhi, where media attention, departmental inquiries, and related public discourse had unfolded following the show’s release on Netflix.
In response, senior advocates Neeraj Kishan Kaul (for Red Chillies) and Rajiv Nayyar (for Netflix) argued that neither Wankhede’s residence nor the film and streaming company’s registered office is in Delhi, and that the series itself is a fictional, satirical work that does not explicitly depict real events such as the 2021 cruise ship drug raid involving Aryan Khan. They also stated that the mere fact the series was co-written and directed by Aryan Khan does not, in itself, demonstrate broad malice or justify judicial intervention.
The court agreed with the defence on the jurisdictional issue, holding that the suit must be filed in a forum where the statutory conditions are met. The judge returned the plaint, granting Wankhede the liberty to present it before a competent court, a procedural step that keeps his legal options open but shifts the battleground away from Delhi.
Background: From 2021 Controversy to Legal Row
The roots of this dispute trace back to 2021, when Wankhede, then zonal director of the NCB in Mumbai, led a high-profile cruise ship drug raid that resulted in the arrest of Aryan Khan, son of iconic film actor Shah Rukh Khan. That case was extensively covered by the media and ended with Aryan Khan being cleared of charges.
The Ba**ds of Bollywood* premiered on Netflix in September 2025 and was noted for its dramatic narrative drawing inspiration from real-life events associated with Bollywood and the drug enforcement landscape in India. Soon after the release, Wankhede filed his suit in Delhi, alleging the series disseminates a misleading and negative portrayal of anti-drug enforcement agencies and specifically targets his reputation by modelling a character closely resembling him. He sought interim relief, including removal of the scene he considered contentious, and ₹2 crore in damages, to be donated to a cancer hospital.
In earlier hearings, the Delhi High Court had interrogated the maintainability of the suit, framing key questions around territorial jurisdiction and whether the content, viewed as a whole, could be considered defamatory signalling the complexity of adjudicating disputes involving online content with nationwide reach.
The defence maintained throughout that the series is fictional and satirical in nature, and that parody and exaggeration form part of its creative purpose. In pre-verdict submissions, Red Chillies and Netflix emphasised artistic freedom, arguing that no direct reference to Wankhede by name existed in the narrative and that viewers would widely understand the characters to be products of creative interpretation rather than factual representations.
Despite these arguments, Wankhede’s legal team maintained that public perception and media coverage following the show’s release could damage his standing and undermine trust in drug enforcement institutions.
The Logical Indian’s Perspective
This legal episode sits at the intersection of creative expression, public interest, and individual dignity. On one hand, artists and storytellers have an important role in probing societal issues, and fictional works often draw inspiration from real events. Protecting artistic freedom is essential in a vibrant democratic culture. At the same time, individuals public servants and private citizens alike have a right to seek redress if they believe a portrayal crosses the line into unlawful defamation.
However, as the Delhi High Court’s order underscores, procedural propriety matters: jurisdictional rules are not mere technicalities but essential safeguards ensuring fairness, access to justice and consistency in the legal process. This judgement does not foreclose Wankhede’s claims; it merely underscores that they must be pursued through the correct legal forum.
