Delhi HC declines to grant interim stay on airing of Netflix series Hasmukh

The Delhi High Court on Tuesday declined to grant interim stay on airing of Vir Das's Hasmukh on Netflix, saying that any such order would interfere with the freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under the Constitution. The high court was dealing with a plea in which it was alleged that the webseries on the online media streaming platform, Netflix, was maligning the image and reputation of lawyers.

Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva observed that the show was a "dark satirical comedy attempting to expose the ills of various professions" and one of the satirical techniques of criticising a particular subject or character "was to exaggerate it beyond normal bounds so that it becomes ridiculous and its faults can be seen". The court further said,"The very essence of democracy is that a creative artist is given the liberty to project the picture of the society in a manner he perceives. One of the prime forms of exposing the ills of the society is by portraying a satirical picture of the same. "Stand-up comedians perform that very purpose. In their portrayal they use satire and exaggerate the ills to an extent that it becomes a ridicule. In the humorous portrayal of the ills of the society the stand-up comedians use satire." The application for interim stay was moved by advocate Ashutosh Dubey in his main suit seeking a permanent injunction on airing of the show, especially episode four, saying it maligns the image and reputation of lawyers everywhere.

In the show in question, the protagonist spoke the allegedly offensive dialogues while performing as a stand-up comedian and the comments were based on his experience with a dishonest lawyer, the court noted. "Having experienced an immoral character, the protagonist thereafter, while performing on the stage as a stand-up comedian makes a satirical comment about the lawyers in general," the court observed in its order dismissing the application for interim stay on airing of the show on Netflix.

Netflix, represented by senior advocate Amit Sibal and advocate Saikrishna Rajagopal, had argued before the court that there are several judgments which say that lawyers as a class cannot be defamed. They had also argued that the series' theme makes it clear that the intention was not to defame or malign any particular profession, but the idea was to "spin a dark satirical comedy about evil in various walks of life and its impact on society".

The court in its order has observed that Dubey has not been able to show that the comments or dialogues in question in any manner refer to him or a definite group of individuals or lawyers out of the entire class of lawyers. "Plaintiff (Dubey) has not been able to show that there exists a prime facie case in favour of him or that in case ad interim injunction is not granted he is liable to suffer any irreparable loss or injury.  "The balance of convenience is not in favour of the plaintiff or in favour of grant of an ad interim injunction. The application is accordingly dismissed," the court said.

After the order was passed, advocate Priyanka Khimani, appearing for Vir Das in the case, issued a statement to the media welcoming the decision. "This is a welcome decision that reinforces artistic and cinematic freedom of speech and expression, without which the world of storytelling would not survive. The content universe today thrives on its ability to express and communicate freely, as it rightly should in any free-thinking and free-speaking nation.  "So this decision is a gentle reminder of the fact that that freedom and ability are still, very much, intact," she said in her statement. The main petition seeking permanent injunction on airing of the show is pending and listed for hearing in July.