- Home
- News
- Articles+
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
- News
- Articles
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
Delhi HC notice to Netflix on plea seeking stay on airing of show ‘Hasmukh’
The Delhi High Court sought the response of video streaming app Netflix over a plea seeking stay on the airing of webseries “Hasmukh” alleging maligning of image of lawyers.A single judge bench of the high court presided by Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva issued notice to Netflix and the producers and director of the webseries to file their written statements on the main suit, seeking...
ToRead the Full Story, Subscribe to
Access the exclusive LEGAL ERAStories,Editorial and Expert Opinion
The Delhi High Court sought the response of video streaming app Netflix over a plea seeking stay on the airing of webseries “Hasmukh” alleging maligning of image of lawyers.
A single judge bench of the high court presided by Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva issued notice to Netflix and the producers and director of the webseries to file their written statements on the main suit, seeking permanent injunction on airing of the show, and the application for interim stay on broadcasting it.
The court has kept the main matter for hearing on July 7 while it also reserved the order on an application seeking interim stay on the airing of the series.
The plea filed by Advocate Ashutosh Dubey sought court’s directions to the webseries producers, directors and writer to tender unconditional apology online saying that the webseries had “maligned the image of the lawyers community, which includes judges as they too had been lawyers at one point of time”.
The plea further read, “The said remarks have caused utmost damage to legal profession and impugned the image of lawyers in the eyes of millions of viewers/ subscribers who visit the streaming website where the show is being streamed.”
The plea also sought deletion or removal of certain objectionable content from the series especially Season 1 Episode 4.
The plea alleges that in the said episode, the makers have alleged lawyers to be “thieves, scoundrels, goons and have had the indecency to address, lawyers as rapists”.
It is not only the advocates, who have been demeaned and disgraced in the whole show but the defendants have not even left the police, especially Uttar Pradesh Police, and the politicians, to which the plaintiffs are not concerned in the present plaint, the plea stated.