In a notable affirmation of artistic freedom, the Delhi High Court recently rejected an interim injunction against the release of the web series "Tribhuvan Mishra CA Topper" on Netflix. Delivered by Justice Navin Chawla on July 16, 2024, this ruling defends creativity against claims of professional disparagement. The decision arose from controversy over the series' trailer, which the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (ICAI) and several Chartered Accountants argued was derogatory to their profession. By denying the stay request, the court reinforced that artistic works should not be restrained without substantial evidence of harm or malintent, highlighting the importance of safeguarding artistic liberties and balancing them with professional sensitivities.
Case Background
The Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (ICAI) and three Chartered Accountants initiated the suit, contending that the trailer, released on July 10, 2024, portrayed the Chartered Accountancy profession in a vulgar and derogatory light. They alleged that the content contained unwarranted innuendos and scandalous references that tarnished the dignity of the profession. According to the plaintiffs, ICAI had received numerous emails objecting to the trailer's content, which they argued was offensive and defamatory to the profession.
The plaintiffs had argued that the trailer's portrayal of the Chartered Accountancy profession would bring disrepute to the entire community of Chartered Accountants. They cited instances of public outrage and complaints received by ICAI as evidence of the trailer's potential to harm the profession's reputation.
Conversely, when representing Netflix, the counsel contended that the web series is entirely fictional and includes a disclaimer at the beginning, clearly stating that the series does not reference any real individuals or professions. The counsel assured the court that Netflix, without prejudice to its rights and contentions, would add a further disclaimer explicitly stating that the show does not make any reference to the Chartered Accountancy profession.
The Court's Findings
Upon reviewing the trailer, Justice Chawla observed that the series appeared to be comedic in nature and merely described the protagonist as a topper in the Chartered Accountancy Examination. "It is a series which appears to be more in the genre of comedy, and merely describes the main character as a topper in Chartered Accountancy Examination," the court remarked, highlighting the apparent satirical tone of the show.
The court acknowledged these assurances and scrutinized the trailer, concluding that it was neither intended nor could be reasonably perceived to be derogatory to the Chartered Accountancy profession or its members. Justice Chawla emphasized the significance of protecting artistic expression, noting, "The artistic expression, even in the form of a commercial speech, cannot be curtailed on the basis of an oversensitive approach."
This decision resonates with the judiciary's broader commitment to safeguarding freedom of speech and expression. In this context, the court underscored that artistic works, including those of a commercial nature, must be evaluated to preserve creative liberties. The court asserted that only in cases where the content is manifestly defamatory or malicious should the scales tip towards curtailing such expression.
"The judiciary has a paramount duty to ensure that freedom of speech and expression is not stifled by an oversensitive reaction to artistic works," Justice Chawla noted. "I, therefore, do not find any prima facie case in favour of the plaintiffs for grant of an ad interim injunction in their favour at this stage."
Balancing Interests
"Tribhuvan Mishra CA Topper" began streaming on
Netflix on July 18, 2024. The show's release, following the
court's decision, marks a victory for creative freedom and sets
a precedent for cases of alleged professional defamation.
The court's ruling impacts the balance between professional
sensitivities and artistic freedoms. By rejecting the interim
injunction plea, the court reinforced that creative expression
should not be unduly hampered by professional or institutional
sensitivities unless there is unequivocal evidence of malintent or
defamation.
Justice Chawla's ruling sheds light on the importance of judicial restraint in matters of artistic expression. By rejecting an "oversensitive approach," the court underscores the need for a balanced understanding of creative works. In this case, the court had to weigh the plaintiffs' concerns about the potential harm to the Chartered Accountancy profession against the importance of artistic freedom. By siding with artistic expression, the court has reaffirmed the principle that creative works should be evaluated based on their overall context and intent, rather than on isolated instances or subjective interpretations.
The ruling serves as a two-fold reminder. First, it serves as a reminder that professional bodies and institutions must approach artistic works with a degree of tolerance and understanding. While protecting the dignity and reputation of professions is important, acknowledging the value of artistic expression and its role in society is equally vital. By promoting a more balanced and nuanced perspective on creative works, the court's decision encourages a culture of open-mindedness and respect for diverse perspectives.
Second, the ruling reinforces the judiciary's role in safeguarding fundamental rights, ensuring that legal processes are not misused to suppress legitimate artistic endeavours. This decision stands as a clarion call for respecting and upholding the delicate balance between professional dignity and the unassailable right to creative freedom.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.