Introduction:

In a significant ruling clarifying where online defamation suits can be filed, the Delhi High Court dismissed a civil defamation suit instituted by IRS officer Sameer Dnyandev Wankhede against the Netflix series “Ba***ds of Bollywood” and related online content, holding that it lacked territorial jurisdiction to entertain the plea, and reaffirming that in cases of internet-based publications, mere accessibility of allegedly defamatory material in a particular city does not automatically confer jurisdiction upon courts of that place, as Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav applied established principles under Section 19 of the Code of Civil Procedure and relied heavily on the precedent in Escorts Ltd. v. Tejpal Singh Sisodia to conclude that jurisdiction lies either where the defendant resides or carries on business or where the reputational harm has actually occurred in the eyes of identifiable persons, and not merely where the plaintiff claims subjective injury, and in the present case, since the plaintiff was a resident of Mumbai and posted in Chennai, and the principal defendants including Netflix and Red Chillies were based in Mumbai, and no concrete pleading was made to establish reputational harm within Delhi, the Court held that the suit ought to have been filed before courts in Mumbai and not in Delhi, thereby returning the plaint for want of jurisdiction and reinforcing doctrinal clarity in online defamation jurisprudence.

Arguments of Both Sides:

The plaintiff, Sameer Dnyandev Wankhede, contended that the allegedly defamatory portrayal of him in the Netflix series, along with other online content circulated through digital platforms, caused reputational harm in Delhi as well because the content was accessible there and was likely viewed by colleagues, officials, and professional peers located in the national capital, and it was argued that in the age of digital dissemination, reputation is no longer geographically confined and that reputational harm can be instantaneous and borderless, therefore courts in any place where the content is accessible and where professional circles exist should be competent to try such disputes, and he further argued that RPG Media had uploaded a video describing him using derogatory language and that since the media entity was carrying on business in Delhi, the cause of action partly arose within Delhi, thereby satisfying jurisdictional requirements, and it was also suggested that the alleged defamatory content had potential to impact legal proceedings and professional standing, which according to the plaintiff strengthened the claim that the wrong was not confined to Mumbai alone, whereas on the other hand, Netflix and Red Chillies strongly opposed the maintainability of the suit before the Delhi High Court and argued that the plaintiff was indulging in forum shopping by artificially creating jurisdiction in Delhi through impleading unnecessary parties and making vague pleadings about reputational harm without specifying any identifiable audience in Delhi in whose eyes the plaintiff’s reputation was allegedly lowered, and they submitted that under the law laid down in Escorts Ltd. v. Tejpal Singh Sisodia, the place of suing in online defamation cases is not determined by mere accessibility of content but by the place where the defendant resides or where maximum reputational harm is actually suffered, and that in this case both the plaintiff and the principal defendants were residents of Mumbai and therefore Mumbai was the natural forum, and they further argued that impleadment of social media platforms and an unrelated media entity was a tactical attempt to circumvent jurisdictional limitations, while counsel for RPG Media pointed out that the entity impleaded as RPSG Lifestyle Media Pvt. Ltd. did not even exist as a legal person and that the correct company was Business Media Pvt. Ltd. operating under a trade name, and further argued that alleged statements by an individual employee could not be attributed to the company in absence of specific pleadings establishing vicarious liability, and that RPG Media was neither producer nor publisher of the Netflix series and thus had no real connection with the core dispute, thereby exposing the attempt to fabricate jurisdictional hooks in Delhi, and collectively the defendants argued that allowing such suits to proceed wherever online content is accessible would lead to abuse of process, multiplicity of litigation, and grave uncertainty for media defendants, making litigation oppressive and unpredictable.

Court’s Judgment:

After examining the pleadings and the legal position, Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav delivered a detailed ruling clarifying that Section 19 of the Code of Civil Procedure requires the court to examine where the wrong of defamation was actually done and not where it could have been done or where the plaintiff merely apprehends reputational harm, and the Court explained that defamation is fundamentally about loss of reputation in the eyes of others and not about subjective feelings of humiliation or loss of self-esteem, and therefore, if the plaintiff is not known in a particular place or does not enjoy professional or social standing there, then it cannot be presumed that reputational harm has occurred in that place merely because the content was technically accessible, and the Court reiterated that in online defamation cases, jurisdiction must be grounded in either the location of the defendant or the place where reputational injury has demonstrably occurred, and accessibility alone cannot create universal jurisdiction, as such a principle would permit plaintiffs to choose any court in the country, thereby defeating settled jurisdictional safeguards, and applying the Tejpal Singh Sisodia precedent, the Court elaborated that when wrong is done at the place where the defendant resides or carries on business, then the plaintiff must sue there and nowhere else due to the operation of the Merger Rule, meaning that when both defendant’s location and the place of reputational harm coincide, jurisdiction merges at that place, and only in exceptional circumstances can a plaintiff sue at an unnatural forum by demonstrating that maximum wrong has occurred there, and such pleading must be specific and supported by facts showing in whose eyes reputation was lowered, and in the present case, the Court found that the plaintiff was a resident of Mumbai, the main defendants were based in Mumbai, and reputational harm, if any, would naturally have occurred in Mumbai where professional and social circles of the plaintiff exist, and therefore the Merger Rule applied with full force, making Mumbai the only competent forum, and the Court rejected the argument that vague apprehensions about impact on legal proceedings or professional prospects could constitute “wrong done” under Section 19 CPC, clarifying that jurisdiction cannot be founded on speculative or future consequences but must be based on actual reputational injury, and the Court further scrutinized the impleadment of RPG Media and held that the entity impleaded did not legally exist, that it was not pleaded as producer or publisher of the series, and that its inclusion in the suit appeared to be a deliberate attempt to bypass jurisdictional restrictions, describing this as clever drafting aimed at subverting the rigours of jurisdictional principles, and the Court categorically held that a plaint which otherwise deserves to be returned for lack of jurisdiction cannot be salvaged by strategic pleading or by adding unnecessary defendants, and that courts must look beyond form to substance while assessing jurisdiction, and on these grounds, the Court concluded that it had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit and directed that the plaint be returned for presentation before the competent court in Mumbai, thereby dismissing the suit in Delhi and reinforcing the doctrinal discipline required in digital defamation litigation.