New Delhi: Red Chillies Entertainment Limited, co-owned by Bollywood superstar Shah Rukh Khan and Gauri Khan, has formally requested the Delhi High Court to dismiss a defamation lawsuit initiated by Sameer Wankhede, a former zonal director of the Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB). The suit pertains to the recently released series, Bade Miyan Chote Miyan. Red Chillies argues that Wankhede was already a figure of public scrutiny due to alleged bribery accusations in the Aryan Khan case, and therefore, the series has not negatively impacted his reputation.
The series, which premiered on Netflix on September 18, was created, co-written, and directed by Aryan Khan, Shah Rukh Khan’s son. Aryan Khan was previously arrested by Wankhede during an NCB raid on a cruise ship in 2021. Notably, Aryan Khan and five others were later cleared by the NCB in 2022.
In its official response, filed in early October, Red Chillies Entertainment addressed Wankhede’s plea to remove specific content from the series. The company characterized Bade Miyan Chote Miyan as a situational satire targeting the Bollywood industry, set against the backdrop of Mumbai. They emphasized that the portrayal of characters is intended purely for satire and parody and does not constitute defamation.
The comprehensive 35-page reply, submitted by advocate Pranav Sarthi, further elaborated that all characters within the series are deliberately depicted with exaggerated traits and mannerisms. This approach, the company stated, is designed to evoke humor and highlight societal or situational absurdities, asserting that Wankhede’s lawsuit seeks to stifle legitimate artistic expression, parody, and satire, which are legally protected. Red Chillies Entertainment suggested that the suit stems from Wankhede’s own hypersensitivity.
The company’s statement read, “It is also submitted that even before the release of *Bade Miyan Chote Miyan*, the Plaintiff was already the subject of public ridicule and adverse commentary. The Plaintiff’s involvement in the aforementioned FIR had attracted significant public attention and criticism, as is clearly demonstrated by numerous social media posts, news articles, and public discourse surrounding the allegations. These materials establish that the Plaintiff’s reputation had already been adversely affected in the public domain well before the release of the said series. The plaintiff, who has an already contested public image, has sought to invoke the defamation proceedings merely to silence artistic and satirical/humorous portrayals.”
Red Chillies added, “At the outset, the answering Defendant submits that the said series in its entirety is conceived and presented as a situational satire of the Bollywood industry set in Mumbai and is intended to humorously depict a variety of characters in an exaggerated manner. The said portrayal of the characters in the said series is purely in the nature of satire and parody, and in no manner amounts to defamation.”
Sameer Wankhede had approached the court seeking the removal of content from Episode 1 of the series, specifically between the timestamps 32:02 and 33:50. This segment features a character closely resembling him in appearance and mannerisms, depicted as an officer arriving at a scene in a private vehicle, chanting “Satyamev Jayate,” and wearing luxury accessories, seemingly targeting individuals associated with the film industry.
The court had previously issued summons concerning Sameer Wankhede’s defamation suit against Red Chillies.
While Wankhede’s suit was scheduled for hearing before Justice Purushindra Kumar Kaurav on Thursday, the proceedings were adjourned to November 10. The court granted additional time for all parties involved—Red Chillies, Netflix, and Sameer Wankhede—to submit their written arguments.
Red Chillies was represented by senior advocates Neeraj Kishan Kaul and Shyel Trehan. Netflix was represented by senior advocate Rajiv Nayyar, and Sameer Wankhede was represented by senior advocate J Sai Deepak.
In its defence, Red Chillies Entertainment argued that the clip in question is crucial to the series’ overall narrative. Removing it, they contended, would result in a “broken narrative” and compromise the series’ integrity.
“Although the impugned clip has a total duration of less than two minutes, it is integral to the overall storyline of the said series, and its deletion or removal would result in a broken narrative, thereby compromising the integrity of the series as a whole,” the reply stated.
The company further clarified that the police officer depicted in the series is portrayed as an “overzealous officer” without being named. “The Defendant submits that the Plaintiff has not been named, referred to, or otherwise identified in the said series. The character depicted in the said series, which the Plaintiff appears to be aggrieved by, appears briefly (for not more than one minute and forty-eight seconds). Moreover, the character appears in a “Non-Government Vehicle,” which has no reference to the Plaintiff’s tenure with the Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB) and/or with the Indian Revenue Service (IRS). Additionally, even the impugned clips show a fictional character, namely “Vaastav Srivastav,” getting arrested,” it concluded.