Facts of the Case
Byrajju Ramalinga Raju, founder of Satyam Computer Services was convicted in 2015 for corporate fraud in the Satyam Scam. Byrajju had falsified company’s accounts and was given a jail time of seven years with a fine of 5.5 crores.
Netflix announced its series “Bad Boy Billionaires: India” which featured Vijay Mallya, Nirav Modi, Subrata Roy and Ramalinga Raju.
Byrajju filed a petition in the Hyderabad City Civil Court seeking an injunction against Netflix from airing the episode on him. He argued that the series would unlawfully invade his privacy and defame him with terms like “fraud” and “greed”, particularly since his legal case was still pending.
Raju alleged that Netflix obtained his photographs and documents under false pretence through Minnow Films, claiming they were creating a documentary on India’s economic boom. He denied giving consent for the docuseries.
On September 4, 2020, the Hyderabad City Civil Court granted an interim injunction restraining Netflix from airing the episode on Raju. Netflix challenged this order in higher courts but refrained from releasing the episode due to ongoing litigation.
Issues Raised
- Whether the portrayal of the plaintiff in the series by Netflix constitutes defamation and damages his reputation?
- Whether the series infringe his right to privacy considering the ongoing legal proceedings?
- Whether preventing Netflix from airing the episode violate their right of freedom of speech and expression provided in Article19(1)(a)?
- Whether the release of the episode would affect the legal proceedings of the plaintiff thus affecting his right to a fair trial?
Rules Applicable
- Order 39 Rule 1 and Rule 2, Civil Procedure Code, 1806 –States about issuance of temporary injunctions.
- Article 14 – States that every person is equal before the law.
- Article 21 – States that every person has the Right to Life and Personal Liberty.
- Article 19 (1) (a) – States the Right to Freedom of Speech and Expression.
- Article 19(2) – States the Restrictions on the Freedoms mentioned in Clause 1.
- Section 499, Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Now, Section 356, Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023)- States that for a statement to be proved defamatory in nature, it should be published or made with the intention to hurt the reputation of the individual.
- Exceptions under Section 499, Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Now Section 356 Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023)
- Exception 1 – States that if a publication is made about an individual, but it contains truthful information if such information will be beneficial for the public.
- Exception 9 – States that the statement made must be made in good faith, there should be no intention to hurt the reputation of the other person and it should be made in public interest.
- Exception 10 – States that if the statement intends to warm the public about an individual’s actions or their conduct, for the public interest and is made in good faith then that statement does not constitute to be defamatory.
Analysis
- If Docuseries Constitute Defamation
Element of Publication in Defamation
Publication is one of the fundamental requirements in the law of defamation. If there is no publication of the statement, then there is no damage caused to the repute of the person. For a statement to be defamatory and cause damage to the repute of the other person, it should be communicated to some third party, apart from the plaintiff and the defendant. Publication is necessary because it ensures the fact that damage to the character of the person was caused by the defamatory material.
Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Now, Section 356, Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023), states that for a statement to be libelous it should be published or made with the intention to hurt the repute of the person. For defamation to have caused the defamatory content should have reached another party apart from the plaintiff. If the material is to the knowledge between the defendant and the plaintiff then there it does not lead to defamation.
In the case of T.J. Ponnen v M.C Verghese[1],it was held that for an crime of defamation under Indian Penal Code, 1860, there must be publication of any accusation concerning any other individual, with the intention to cause harm or has the knowledge that such a publication will be cause damage to the repute of that person. To be considered defamation, such imputation must be published along with the intention that such allegation will cause harm to the reputation of the person, hence without publication there can be no defamation.
In Mahendra Ram v. Harnandan Prasad[2], it was stated that publication of the statement is critical to prove defamation. and if the impugned statement is communicated to a third party, then that will also amount to defamation as it satisfies the element of publication.
In the present case, the plaintiff states that content of the episodes showcases him as a fraudster and a criminal. He also states the words used in the trailer and the title and tag of the docuseries. However, there is no publication of the episode. Only the trailer has been released. Netflix states that since the episode has not been released on its platform, there is no publication of the alleged defamatory material to the public hence it does not constitute defamation. Hence this does not meet the requirement of the publication.
The plaintiff only relies on the trailer transcript in order to prove defamation. And here, Netflix states that the trailer is just brief description of the series and does not contain any new material against the plaintiff. Whatever has been showcases is already present in the public records and other factual resources which are all available in the public domain.
The trailer does not show any information that is directly targeting the plaintiff. No information provided in the trailer also intends to lower down the reputation of the plaintiff, any and all the information disbursed is factual which is has been verified from various public records.
With the lack of publication and the episode being unreleased, the fundamental element of publication is not present which negates the element of defamation. The episode has not even reached the public, so no harm has been caused to the reputation of the plaintiff. For the trailer, it only showcases facts that have been extracted from the public records. Hence the claim of defamation is undermined.
Exceptions for Defamation
Section 499, Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Now, Section 356, Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023), also provides with certain exceptions that protect statements which are made in good faith, are truthful or they serve public good.
Exception 1
This exception states that if a publication is made about an individual, but it contains truthful information if such information will be beneficial for the public. Both the requirements of truth and public good are essential to prove that the statement falls under this exception.
In the case of Subramanian Swamy v Union of India[3], there is a requirement of equilibrium between free speech and protection of repute of an individual. Hence if a statement is accurate and is made in the awareness of the public then it is a valid defence to defamation.
In the present case, the content that is showcased in the episode is that information which is already in various public resources and is already available in public domain. The historical Satyam Scam can be found in various documents and other sources. The episode also contains the same factual information without introducing any false facts.
Letting the public know about this Scam promotes awareness and accountability in the corporate world. Hence educating the public through this also serves for the public good. By depicting a real – life corporate fraud case, the series also aims to inform and educate viewers about the same.
Exception 9
This exception basically states that the statement made must be made in good faith, there should be no intention to hurt the repute of the other person and it should be announced in public interest.
In the case of R.Rajagopal vs State of Tamil Nadu[4], any statements that are true, which are made about the public figures are in bonafide intention and for the communal interest and if facts mentioned in those are taken from public records then it will not be considered as defamation.
In the present case, the docuseries, is a fact- based documentary, which was created with an intention to make the public aware about the Satyam Scam. Nowhere in the trailer or in the episode, any false claims have been made about the plaintiff. All facts presented have been obtained from public records. Hence, the documentary was made in good faith.
The documentary does not create or present any new allegations against the plaintiff. It just provides with a platform where all the information and facts related to the case are presented in a consolidated manner.
Exception 10
This exception basically states that if the statement intends to warm the public about an individual’s actions or their conduct, for the public interest and is made in good faith then that statement does not constitute to be defamatory.
In the present case, the series showcases the Satyam Scam based on facts that are verified by the public information. By showcasing the Scam, the series in good faith aim to warn the people about consequences of fraudulent practices and financial mismanagement.
Hence, in the present case, the series adheres to the principles of truth, good faith and how they inform and make the public aware about the fraudulent practices. Without the publication of the episode, the claim for defamation cannot be held valid.
Damages as a remedy in Defamation
In the case of R.Rajagopal vs State of Tamil Nadu[5], if after publication, defamation and harm is caused to the reputation of the person, then the plaintiff can be compensated through damages.
However, in the present case, the publication of the episode is still not done. Yet the plaintiff claims for defamation, hence restraining the release of episode will be unjustified.
- Right to Privacy
The fundamental Right to Privacy is provided under Article 21, which guarantees Right to Life and Liberty to every person.
In Puttaswamy vs Union of India[6], court decided that Right to Privacy is an integral part of Right to Life and Personal Liberty hence it was included under Article 21 and made a Fundamental Right. In this case, the test of proportionality was also laid down which basically stated that the invasion of the privacy must be in proportion to the need for the interference.
But, this right to privacy is also not an absolute right and is subjected to restrictions. Reasonable restrictions as mentioned in Article 19, can be put on the right to privacy like national interest, threat to sovereignty of India, public order etc. Another exception to the right of the privacy is that it can be subjugated if there is a conflict among the right to privacy and another fundamental right which serves the communal interest.
In the current case, the plaintiff states believes that series intrudes upon his personal life and causes harm to his reputation. Depicting about his personal life, it invades his right to privacy. He states how the events showcased in the series, showcases his role in the Satyam Scam, hence focusing on his actions, motives which further leads to impact on his relationships. He also states about the title and the tagline of the docuseries which associates him to greed, fraud and corruption. This infringes his Right to Dignity and Privacy.
However, Netflix states that the series is just a depiction of the facts and nowhere does it focus on his personal life. The facts also which are depicted are all verified and taken from public records like books, articles. Hence the show depicting one of the largest frauds in the country and has significant public implications as it intends to make people aware about the same.
In Rajagopal v State of Tamil Nadu[7], it was held that public figures have a reduced expectation of privacy specially in those matters which are of public interest. It was also held that remedies for defamation or privacy appear only after publication of the material. It held that a public figure cannot prevent the publication of any true information which has been derived from public records.
Here, the plaintiff was a well-known public figure and the one behind one of India’s largest corporate frauds. Even the series showcases content that is factual and not providing with any new allegations neither presenting any new facts about the scam. Everything shown is very well known to public and already present in public records which negates that the Right to Privacy of the plaintiff was invaded. The plaintiff also seeks to restrict the release of the episode stating it will cause harm to his reputation and privacy.
Restraining the release of the series will lead to infringement of the right to freedom of speech and expression accessible to the defendant. Netflix has no bad intention to defame or harm the plaintiff by the release of this episode.
Also, with the episode not being release till now, there is no question of the privacy of the plaintiff be infringed. Only the trailer has been released and that also does not provide any details about the personal life of the plaintiff in any way that could cause invasion in their Right to Privacy.
Hence, the Right to Privacy must be checked along with the public’s right to know. Restraining Netflix from releasing this episode, will lead to limitation of their free speech but also cause a hindrance in the public interest, as it will prevent them from knowing about one of the biggest scams of the country.
- Right to Fair Trial
The plaintiff states that how his right to free trial is being infringed with the release of the docuseries, Bad Boy Billionaires: India on Netflix. This documentary showcases the life of the plaintiff; hence the plaintiff urges about how the release of this series can influence his ongoing cases and his judicial proceedings hence impacting his rights of free trial.
The right to free trial is provided to everyone under Article 21, which provides us with Right to life and Personal Liberty and also includes this right. Even under Article 14, which provides equality to all individuals, ensures that all individuals are treated fairly during these legal proceedings.
The right to fair trial includes that the person has an impartial hearing and there is no external influence which impacts the proceedings. Digital platforms like Netflix, plays a dual role. While they also provide a platform for providing information to the public, they also play an important role in shaping the opinion of the public on the said issue.
The plaintiff states that with the release of this series, it will cause harm to his reputation with a very strong and negative impact. He states that it could shape a strong and negative public opinion against him and also deny him the right to free trial.
In R. Rajagopal v state of Tamil Nadu[8], it was held that it is not defamation for information that is true about the public figures in the interest of the society.
The series in this case, provides for true depiction of the scam, with all the facts being taken from the public sources. All the facts showcased are taken from public records, judgements and verified facts about the scam. The Satyam Scam, is one of the biggest frauds, and by showcasing about the same, they intend to raise awareness and highlight about the consequences of the same.
The plaintiff states that the series would hinder his legal proceedings. But there is no publication of the entire episode, only the trailer had been released. The full episode has not been viewed and claims of the content of the episode impacting on the legal proceedings are hypothetical. With absence of the concrete content, it’s not possible to assess whether the content mentioned in the episode, would influence judicial proceedings.
Since the actual content is not mentioned, it’s just a speculation that the right to free trial of the plaintiff was harmed. Without the full episode being released, harm to the legal proceedings cannot be proved.
The plaintiff solely relies on the trailer. The trailer is just a brief summary of the series, and does not provide any complete details of the subject matter. It just highlights the themes related to the corporate fraud and does not state any specific defamatory statements against the plaintiff. It includes the already known facts and information without introducing any new allegations against the plaintiff.
Legal proceedings are not influenced by external sources
In the case of State of Maharashtra vs Rajendra Gandhi[9], it was decided that judiciary is not influenced by any external media reports or other sources.
Hence, the judiciary remains impartial and unaffected by any other media sources. They need to rely solely on the evidence and the arguments that are presented only during the trial. The opinion formed from the trailer does not affect the judicial proceedings, as the judiciary negates such narratives and provide judgements on what is produced before them.
Hence, in this case, the legal proceedings remain unaffected with the episode not being released during the time of litigation. The claims of the plaintiff were solely being relied on trailer released with the trailer not stating any defamatory statements or presenting any allegations against the plaintiff. Also, the judiciary is not influenced by any external media narrative.
- Freedom of Speech and Expression
The right to freedom of speech and expression is available to all the citizens under Article 19(1)(a) which provides them the right to share their opinions, information and express their ideas. However, this not being an absolute right is subject to certain restrictions like security and sovereignty of the State, public order, morality etc.
Prior Restraint on the release of the Episode
In the present case, the plaintiff wants to restrict the release of the episode from being aired. Prior restraint basically refers to preventing the content from being released and hence causes extreme restriction on free speech as it denies the content from even being heard, viewed or read.
In Rajagopal vs State of Tamil Nadu[10], it was held that prior restraint should be done in exceptional circumstances itself when there are threats to national security, public morality or a threat to the public order.
In Shreya Singhal vs Union of India[11], the court declared Section 66A of the IT Act, 2000, as unconstitutional as it violated the fundamental right to freedom of speech and Expression. The court stated that this right cannot be curtailed unless it falls within the reasonable restrictions as mentioned in Article 19 (2).
Imposition of prior restraint can create a chilling effect. In the present case, the plaintiff has requested for an injunction against the unreleased episode solely based on the trailer. The trailer just provides a brief overview of the series, providing with publicly available facts about the scam.
Hence preventing the episode from being released will be harming the fundamental right to its Freedom of Speech and Expression under Article 19 (1)(a). Restraining the release of the series will be unjustified. The content of the episode does not pose any threat to public order and hence restricting its release will be unconstitutional. Hence, the restriction to release the episode must also been gone through the test of Reasonableness as mentioned in Article 19 (2).
Chilling effect on Freedom of speech and Expression
Chilling effect basically refers when there are restrictions which prevent individuals and organisations from exercising their right to Freedom of Speech and Expression. Speculative defamation claims can discourage creators from showcasing and addressing important societal issues. In the present case, solely relying on the trailer transcript and claiming defamation can restrict the Right of Freedom of Speech and Expression. If the release of the episode is restrained, then several platforms will prevent publishing content on public interest issues.
Public’s Interest and Public’s Right to Know
In Indian Express Newspapers vs Union of India[12], it was held that the freedom of press also includes the duty to inform and educate the public on matters of public interest. Satyam Scam, being one of the biggest frauds in the country, showcases about the loopholes and hence the public has the right to be informed about the same. Hence through this episode, it aims to educate the viewers about the same, considering it is a matter of significant communal interest.
Hence, the restrain on release of the episode is infringing upon the platform’s Right to Article 19 (1)(a) as there is no sufficient justification. It undermines the ability of the platform to discuss such pertinent public interest issues and also creating a chilling effect on the Free Speech and Expression. This not only causes a hindrance to the dissemination of the crucial information but also deprives the public from gaining knowledge of such important issues.
JUDGEMENT
The judgment in this case has involved a series of interim orders and procedural directions rather than a final determination. The inaugural injunction order banning Netflix from airing the episode of Ramalinga Raju was obtained initially by the Hyderabad City Civil Court. This was because Raju stated that he would be invaded in his privacy and it will defame him. But Netflix fought the court’s order in higher courts and argued it was inappropriate to censor such material and that the matter about Raju is already in public domain.
The City Civil Court, however, stepped in in November 2022, urging the Telangana High Court to direct it within three weeks to decide the issue about the airing of the episode. The Court of Appeal noted procedural irregularities by the lower court, and that missing that step was fatal. Although the High Court did not rule on the virtues of the case, the High Court set a timeline for the Middle Court to hear arguments from both parties and render a decision. As of now, not a final judgment has been reported as to whether the episode with Ramalinga Raju can be aired on Netflix. The decision is still pending at the lower court.
The present case, showcases an intersection between rights to Freedom of Speech, Right to Privacy, Right to Fair Trial, Defamation highlights the balance that is required to protect the rights of a person and also safeguard broader public interest.
With no publication of the episode, the claim of defamation cannot be held valid. While, the portrayal of the Scam by Netflix is based on facts that are publicly available, serving public interest, to let the public know about one of the biggest corporate frauds, with also considering the Plaintiff’s right of privacy and safeguarding his reputation. The platform’s right to Freedom of Speech and Expression must not be suppressed through the prior restraints on the release of the episode which will also prevent the communication of the information to the plaintiff.
Hence with the media platforms holding a lot of power, a balance should be struck between free speech and personal rights ensuring that the fundamental rights are not infringed.
Author: Nishita Gupta, in case of any queries please contact/write back to us via email to chhavi@khuranaandkhurana.com or at Khurana & Khurana, Advocates and IP Attorney.
[1] M.C. Verghese v. T.J. Poonan, (1969) 1 SCC 37
[2] Mahender Ram v. Harnandan Prasad, 1958 SCC OnLine Pat 40
[3] Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India, (2016) 7 SCC 221
[4] R. Rajagopal v. State of T.N., (1994) 6 SCC 632
[5] Ibid
[6] Justice K.S. Puttaswamy and Ors. vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors. (24.08.2017 – SC) : MANU/SC/1044/2017
[7] Supra n.4
[8] Supra n.4
[9] State of Maharashtra v. Rajendra Jawanmal Gandhi, (1997) 8 SCC 386
[10] Supra n.4
[11] Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, (2015) 5 SCC 1
[12] Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) (P) Ltd. v. Union of India, (1985) 1 SCC 641