Delhi High Court Refuses to Stay Release of Netflix Series 'Tribhuvan Mishra CA Topper'

Delhi High Court Refuses to Stay Release of Netflix Series 'Tribhuvan Mishra CA Topper'

The Delhi High Court has refused to halt the release of the Netflix web series Tribhuvan Mishra CA Topper. This decision came after a plea from the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (ICAI) and other plaintiffs, who argued that the show's trailer depicted the chartered accountancy profession in a derogatory manner.

Court's Decision and Rationale

In a recent order, Justice Navin Chawla stated, "In my prima facie view, I do not find the trailer to be referring to the profession of chartered accounting in any manner." The court noted that the series appears to be a comedy and that it merely describes the main character as a topper in the Chartered Accountancy Examination. The judge emphasized that the content is not intended, nor can it be perceived, to be derogatory to the profession of Chartered Accountancy or to the examination's toppers or rank holders. The court also highlighted the importance of artistic expression, stating that it cannot be curtailed based on an overly sensitive interpretation.

Legal Proceedings and Plaintiff's Arguments

Despite refusing to stay the series' release, the court issued notices to all defendants and directed them to file their replies within four weeks. The plaintiffs, including the ICAI, contended that the trailer, released on July 10, 2024, portrays the chartered accountancy profession in a vulgar and derogatory manner. They argued that this portrayal is illegal and violates their constitutional rights.

The plaintiffs pointed to specific lines in the trailer that allegedly equate the services of Chartered Accountants to "debit and credit with reference to sexual services offered," which they claim is defamatory to the profession. They also mentioned receiving emails objecting to the trailer's content, which they said included unwarranted innuendos about the profession.

Defense by Netflix

Counsel for Netflix and other defendants argued that the series is entirely fictional and includes a disclaimer stating that it bears no reference to any real individual or profession. They also mentioned that, within five days, Netflix would add a disclaimer specifically noting that the series does not refer to any profession, further mitigating the concerns raised by the plaintiffs.

Conclusion

This case underscores the ongoing debate over the boundaries of artistic expression and the protection of professional reputations. The court's decision highlights the importance of balancing creative freedom with respect for professions and individuals. As the legal proceedings continue, the case may set a precedent for how such issues are handled in the future.