Delhi HC refuse to stay the release of TRIBHUVAN MISHRA CA TOPPER
LitLegal >> Entertainment law>> Delhi HC refuse to stay the release of TRIBHUVAN MISHRA CA TOPPER
Delhi HC refuse to stay the release of TRIBHUVAN MISHRA CA TOPPER
Netflix is gearing up for the release of its new drama, Tribhuvan Mishra CA Topper, which is already generating buzz and controversy.
The series, starring Manav Kaul, Tillotama Shome, and Subhrajyoti Barat, promises a gripping narrative that dives into the complexities of modern life. Created by Puneet Krishna, the show centers on a banking crisis that forces CA topper Tribhuvan Mishra to take up sex work.
ICAI’s Response to the Drama
The Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (ICAI) has expressed strong disapproval of the show’s portrayal of Chartered Accountants. In response, ICAI filed a civil suit against Netflix, the Production House, and others involved in the creation of the show in order to stay the release of the show. The show is slated for release on July 18, 2024.
Our firm, in collaboration with Ami Desai of Desai & Associates and lead counsel Adv. Hiren Kamod, represented the Production House, the directors, screenwriters, and other stakeholders involved in the suit, specifically Defendant no. 5 to 12. The suit was listed on July 16, 2024, and was heard before Hon’ble Mr. Justice Navin Chawla of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court.
Arguments on behalf of ICAI
It was argued that the trailer of the series “Tribhuvan Mishra CA Topper” shows the profession of Chartered Accountants in an extremely vulgar and derogatory sense.
It was further argued that Portraying a dignified profession in such scandalous manner is totally illegal and violative of the Constitutional rights of the Plaintiffs.
Arguments on behalf of Respondents
It was argued that the Plaintiff failed to make a prima facie case of defamation. Multiple case laws were cited (discussed below) to contend that the subject matter series is neither violative of any constitutional provision nor defamatory to the profession.
Court’s observations
The Hon’ble Court after hearing arguments from both the sides came to a prima facie conclusion that unlike Plaintiff’s claim, the show does not disparage the whole of profession. Rather it is a story telling of a person who happens to be a CA topper.
The Hon’ble Court relied on the following cases:
Asha Parekh and Ors. v. The State of Bihar and Ors., wherein it was held that:
The words or visible representations, therefore, complained of must contain an imputation concerning some particular person or persons whose identity can be established. If they contain no reflection upon a particular individual or individuals, but equally apply to others although belonging to the same class, an action for defamation will not lie… …“However reprehensible and morally unjustifiable the words complained of may be they must to be, actionable, contain an imputation concerning some particular person or persons whose identity can be established. An Imputation against an association or collection of persons jointly may also amount to defamation within the meaning of the section but at the same time it must be an Imputation capable of being brought home to a particular individual or collection of individuals as such… …It is sufficient if on the evidence it can be shown that the imputation was directed towards a particular person or persons who can be identified… …“In every case where the plaintiff is not named the test whether the words used refer to him is the question whether the words are such as would reasonably lead persons acquainted with the plaintiff to believe that he was the person referred to. If the words can be regarded as capable of referring to the plaintiff, the jury still have to decide the question of fact—Do they lead reasonable people, who know him, to the conclusion that they do refer to him?… …The reason why a libel published of a large or indeterminate number of persons described by some general name generally fails to be actionable is the difficulty of establishing that the plaintiff was, in fact, included in the defamatory statements, for the habit of making unfounded generalization is ingrained in ill educated or vulgar minds, or the words are occasionally intended to be facetious exaggeration… …Thus no action would lie at the suit of anyone for saying that all mankind is vicious and depraved, or even for alleging that all clergymen are hypocrites or all lawyers dishonest… …For charges so general in their nature are merely vulgar generalization… …A class of persons cannot be defamed as a class, nor can an individual be defamed by general reference to the class to which he belongs…
1977 Cri LJ 21
Shah Rukh Khan Vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors, wherein it was held that:
law requires that the defamatory statement, in order to be actionable, be made against a definite and an identifiable group. However, lawyers taken as a class cannot be identified with any particular individual– indeterminate, indefinite, and unidentifiable as the members are: Firstly, the members of this class are too varied to be reduced to a few traits. Their is not a homogenous class, but a heterogeneous one, made up of wonderfully different individuals. Secondly, they are spread over the length and the breadth of the land. Thirdly, the class is always in flux, ever changing, as new lawyers enter and old ones depart the profession. The entire members of the class are clearly unidentifiable and indeterminable.
RLW 2008 (1) Raj 809
The Hon’ble Court refused to grant stay on the release of the series Tribhuvan Mishra CA Topper.
Counsel for the Plaintiff: Amarjit Singh Chandiok, Sr Adv.
Counsel for Defendant No. 1- Sandeep Sethi, Sr Adv, Saikrishna Rajagopal, Sneha Jain
Counsel for Defendant No. 5-12- Hiren Kamod, Ami Desai, Sachin Gupta, Ajay Kumar, Rohit Pradhan, Manan Mondal, Prashansa Singh, Srishti Talukdar, Riddhi Shah, Surekha
Related Post