Delhi HC On Sameer Wankhede Suit: Online Defamation Cannot Create Pan India Jurisdiction

The Delhi High Court has rejected a civil defamation suit filed by Sameer Wankhede against multiple defendants including production houses, digital streaming platforms and social media intermediaries, holding that it lacked territorial jurisdiction under Section 19 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Court held that where alleged online defamation occurs across jurisdictions including the place where the defendants reside, the suit must necessarily be instituted at that place.

The judgment was delivered by Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav, who held that the Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the plaint and accordingly directed that the plaint be returned to the plaintiff for presentation before the competent court, while granting liberty to seek appropriate directions under Order VII Rule 10A CPC. The Court further clarified that since jurisdiction itself failed, other issues including merits did not arise for consideration.

"In the context of online defamation, where it is possible for a plaintiff to plead wrong done across the country, an unqualified application of Section 19 would permit a plaintiff to institute proceedings in any forum of its choosing; Such an interpretation would defeat the object of the provision and open the door to forum shopping, libel tourism, and luxury litigation”, Court said.

The Court noted at the threshold that maintainability and territorial jurisdiction must be examined before considering interim relief, and courts are empowered to return or reject a plaint even suo motu where jurisdiction is lacking. It observed that subjecting parties to litigation in a forum lacking jurisdiction would be improper, particularly where defendants raise specific objections at the threshold stage.

Appearing for the defendants, Neeraj Kishan Kaul and Shyel Trehan, Senior Advocates with Janay Jain, along with other counsel, argued that jurisdiction must exist on the date of institution and cannot be retrospectively created through amendments. It was submitted that the principal contesting defendants were located in Mumbai, while the plaintiff himself was also linked to Mumbai, and even the amended plaint admitted that the alleged wrong had occurred there.

Relying on the Delhi High Court decision in Escorts Ltd. v. Tejpal Singh Sisodia, 2019 SCC OnLine Del 7607, it was argued that even if the wrong also occurred in Delhi, the suit would lie only before courts in Mumbai.

Defendants further emphasised that the plaint itself acknowledged that the alleged wrong had occurred in Mumbai in addition to Delhi, and therefore jurisdiction could not be artificially created in Delhi. It was also argued that impleadment of one entity was a self serving attempt to forum shop and circumvent settled jurisdiction principles.

On the contrary, the plaintiff broadly contended that jurisdiction existed in Delhi because the allegedly defamatory content was accessible and viewed in Delhi and caused reputational harm there.

It was argued that under Section 19 CPC, wrong done includes the effect of the wrong, and substantial harm had occurred in Delhi because of dissemination and professional consequences there.

Rejecting these submissions, the Court undertook an extensive analysis of Section 19 CPC and jurisprudence governing online defamation. It reiterated that in defamation law, the wrong occurs when defamatory content is communicated to a third party who knows the plaintiff and whose estimation of the plaintiff is lowered. The Court clarified that mere internet accessibility across locations cannot automatically confer jurisdiction everywhere.

"A plaint which otherwise deserves to be returned or rejected owing to lack of jurisdiction or other defects, cannot, by clever drafting, be made maintainable before a given Court", it was further observed.

The Court reaffirmed principles emerging from Tejpal, particularly the Merger Rule and Maximum Wrong Rule.

It held that if the wrong occurs at multiple places and one of those places is also where the defendant resides or carries on business, then the plaintiff must sue at that place alone. The option to choose another forum exists only when the place of wrong and defendant residence are different.

The Court emphasised that these rules are necessary to prevent forum shopping, libel tourism and arbitrary selection of jurisdictions, especially in internet defamation where content can theoretically be accessed anywhere. It observed that allowing jurisdiction based solely on pleaded nationwide harm would defeat the legislative intent of Section 19 CPC.

"If, upon a careful and meaningful reading of the plaint, it becomes evident that the wrong was also done at the place where the defendant resides, and that the plaintiff has consciously omitted such facts with a view to surmount the jurisdictional bar, the Court would be duty-bound to return the plaint for presentation before the competent court having jurisdiction", it was added.

Applying these principles to the facts, the Court noted that the plaint itself stated that the allegedly defamatory content was accessible across India and that its effects were felt across the country. This necessarily implied publication and harm in Mumbai as well, particularly given the plaintiff’s own links to Mumbai and the defendants’ location there.

The Court also found that impleadment of one defendant appeared to be an attempt to create an illusory cause of action to avoid the jurisdictional bar. It held that such drafting cannot be used to defeat statutory jurisdiction principles and described it as clever drafting aimed at subverting jurisdictional safeguards.

Accordingly, the Court held that the Merger Rule applied with full force and that jurisdiction lay only with courts in Mumbai. The plaint was returned to be presented before the competent court, with liberty granted to seek appropriate directions under Order VII Rule 10A CPC.

Counsel for Plaintiff: J. Sai Deepak, Senior Advocate with Shaktiki Sharma, Purnima Vashishtha, Jatin Parashar, Rohit Bhagat, Kunal Vats, Aprajita, Tanya Arora and Sanyam, Advocates.

Counsel for Defendants: Neeraj Kishan Kaul and Shyel Trehan, Senior Advocates with Janay Jain, Monisha, Mane Bhangale, Bijal Vora, Rhea Rao, Ashutosh Agarwal, Pranav Sarthi, Rohan Poddar, Vidhi Jain, Ayush Raj, Prachi Dhingra, Udit Bajpai and Utkarsh Vatsa, Advocates for Defendant 1; Angad Makkar and Raghav Goyal, Advocates for Defendant 2; Rajiv Nayyar, Senior Advocate with Saikrishna Rajagopal, Sidharth Chopra, Sneha Jain and Devrat Joshi, Advocates for Defendant 2; Ankit Parhar with Tejpal Singh Rathore, Abhishek Kumar and Sanchi Sethi, Advocates for Defendant 3; Mamta R Jha with Rohan Ahuja and Mshruttima, Advocates for Defendant 4; Amee Rana with Thejesh Rajendran and Tanuj Sharma, Advocates for Defendant 5; Sankalp Udgata with Jeevan Ballav Panda, Advocates for Defendant 6.

Case Title: Sameer Dnyandev Wankhede v Red Chillies Entertainments Pvt Ltd & Ors

Judgment date: 29.01.2026

Bench: Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav