What's new

India court order on documentary 'freezes free speech': Netflix

MenInG

PakPassion Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Oct 2, 2004
Runs
217,980
An Indian court's decision to stall the release of a Netflix Inc series on four Indian tycoons facing fraud allegations "freezes free speech" and hurts the company financially, the US streaming giant has argued in a court filing seen by Reuters.

Bad Boy Billionaires is a documentary series about liquor tycoon Vijay Mallya, Sahara group's Subrata Roy, Indian IT executive Ramalinga Raju and jeweller Nirav Modi. Netflix put the show on hold this month on order of a state court where Sahara alleged violation of Roy's privacy rights.

Roy is currently on bail in a case where he was ordered by court to repay billions of dollars to investors in a scheme which was found to be illegal. Roy denied wrongdoing in the case and has already repaid investors, his counsel said.

Arguing for free speech in an appeal at the High Court of eastern Bihar state, Netflix said the docuseries was an assimilation of information available in the public domain. The filing has not previously been reported.

The pre-publication injunction granted by the court "freezes free speech," Netflix said in the filing earlier this month, which was reviewed by Reuters. It argued it has a right to free speech "on a matter of public interest".

Some Netflix shows in India have faced court challenges and police complaints for obscenity or for hurting sentiments. The continuing legal spat is among the most high-profile ones Netflix has faced in India, one of its key growth markets.

The court in Bihar that gave the injunction earlier had said the series "would certainly damage the reputation" of Roy.

Sahara and Netflix declined to comment. Roy could not be reached for comment.

The US streaming giant has argued it had invested large sums and done worldwide publicity on the series. The injunction, Netflix argued, resulted in irreparable monetary loss, as well as affected its goodwill and reputation.

Netflix describes Bad Boy Billionaires as an "investigative docuseries (which) explores the greed, fraud and corruption that built up - and ultimately brought down - India's most infamous tycoons."

Netflix is locked in a legal spat not just with Sahara, but also another businessman, Raju, whose story was to appear in the series.

Raju, accused of a $1bn accounting fraud more than a decade ago, had secured a separate state court order against the show's release, but Netflix has challenged it in a higher court, said A Venkatesh, a lawyer representing Raju.

Raju will continue to argue against the show's release, said Venkatesh.

Both Netflix's appeals are likely to be heard in coming days. It was not clear if the other two tycoons - Modi and Mallya - have filed petitions against the release of the series.

Modi is facing extradition attempts by India after his arrest in London last year over his alleged involvement in a $2bn bank fraud. Mallya, too, is in Britain fighting India's extradition bid for alleged fraud at his now-defunct Kingfisher Airlines.

Modi and Mallya have denied any wrongdoing.

Zulfiquar Memon of Indian law firm MZM Legal, who is part of the team representing Modi in his extradition case, said they had not filed any case to halt the release of the series, but were "sitting on the fence" tracking the continuing proceedings.

A lawyer for Mallya could not immediately be reached for comment.

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020...ezes-free-speech-netflix-200915031930221.html
 
Power of big money!

Like what's the point of a documentary if its always nice about people?
 
This is yet again a pathetic order! Subroto Roy is a known crook, has been in jail for many years and embezzeled hard earned money of lakhs of Indians. Instead of recovering that money from the crook, they are busy in doing what they know best, shoot the messanger.

They have got their priorities absolutely right!
 
This is yet again a pathetic order! Subroto Roy is a known crook, has been in jail for many years and embezzeled hard earned money of lakhs of Indians. Instead of recovering that money from the crook, they are busy in doing what they know best, shoot the messanger.

They have got their priorities absolutely right!

This is interim stay, which means the court needs more time to hear both sides. At least be aware how court works.
 
Some Netflix shows in India have faced court challenges and police complaints for obscenity or for hurting sentiments. The continuing legal spat is among the most high-profile ones Netflix has faced in India, one of its key growth markets.

This is irrational. You cannot have a one side worldview; there needs to a balance. Not surprising this though.
 
Netflix has released three episodes of its four-part series about Indian tycoons facing fraud allegations after a state court lifted an injunction, a lawyer for the world’s largest streaming service said on Monday.

The Bad Boy Billionaires: India documentary series about liquor tycoon Vijay Mallya, Subrata Roy of the Sahara group, IT executive Ramalinga Raju and jeweller Nirav Modi had been set for release last month.

But Netflix suspended it after an order from the Araria district court in the eastern Bihar state, where the Sahara group argued it would damage Roy’s reputation.

The court lifted this injunction on Saturday, Amit Shrivastava, a lawyer for Netflix said.

Shrivastava declined further comment and it was not immediately clear why the court had overturned its previous order. The official order has yet to be released.

Netflix did not respond to a request for comment.

Sahara said in a statement that the documentary was “misleading”, adding that it was “depicted through some disgruntled people who hold personal grudges against Sahara”.

Roy is currently on bail, having been ordered by a court to repay billions of dollars to investors in a scheme which was found to be illegal. Roy denied wrongdoing in the case and his lawyer has said he has already repaid investors.

The continuing dispute over Bad Boy Billionaires is among the most high-profile ones Netflix has faced in India, one of its key growth markets, where some of its shows have faced court challenges and police complaints for obscenity or for offending religious sentiments.

Netflix argued that halting the show’s release “freezes free speech” and hurt it financially.

On Monday, Netflix made three of the four episodes in the series available on its app for viewers in India. The episode focusing on Raju was unavailable.

Raju, who admitted to a $1bn accounting fraud more than a decade ago, has obtained a separate injunction from a court in south India. That case was heard on Monday and the hearing will resume on October 9, A Venkatesh, a lawyer for Raju, told Reuters news agency.


The other two businessmen, Modi and Mallya, are currently in Britain and face extradition proceedings.

Both have denied wrongdoing.


https://www.aljazeera.com/economy/2...-bad-boy-billionaires-india-amid-legal-battle
 
Who wants to watch such a documentary anyway? Indians involved in financial fraud isn't exactly a new thing, not sure it will make for riveting television anyway. It's why India still looks like a third world country, because greed and corruption means wealth is never distributed for the good of the nation.
 
Who wants to watch such a documentary anyway? Indians involved in financial fraud isn't exactly a new thing, not sure it will make for riveting television anyway. It's why India still looks like a third world country, because greed and corruption means wealth is never distributed for the good of the nation.

I watched the 3 parts, and suffice to say, India's global image when it comes to doing business is slim shady to say the least. On top of that you are spot on, when the homes of these bad boy billionaires were shown, it was an advert for wealth disparity in India, billionaire homes bang centre of Indian slums/poverty.

But if I had to say who was the smartest billionaire crook of the 3, I would say Sahara.
 
But if I had to say who was the smartest billionaire crook of the 3, I would say Sahara.
This is true. Despite looting so many people he is out of jail, happily living in his palace, let alone returning the loot to the investors. He did serve a few months if my memory serves me right, however that was nowhere close to the crimes he committed.
 
Where else would you find such criminals living with such impunity?
 
Surprisingly, I can't see it in my Netflix account. Has it not been released on Netflix India?
 
Surprisingly, I can't see it in my Netflix account. Has it not been released on Netflix India?

They released I think and had to take it off due to court order (??) from what I heard
 
By that do you mean Nawaz Sharif? But he isn't UK citizen.

Same for Nirav Modi & Vijay Mallya.

Yeah, all these types of criminals eventually end up in London seeking asylum or some sort.

There's a reason why London is the capital of money laundering, financial, and legal services - London has more crooks in the city than another major city in the world.
 
Yeah, all these types of criminals eventually end up in London seeking asylum or some sort.

There's a reason why London is the capital of money laundering, financial, and legal services - London has more crooks in the city than another major city in the world.
Sure. Extraditing them without many legal hassles is good in theory.

However practically speaking, onus is more on their own governments not to let them run away from their home.
 
Sure. Extraditing them without many legal hassles is good in theory.

However practically speaking, onus is more on their own governments not to let them run away from their home.

Let me give you an example. Abu Hamza, heard of him? It took a good part of 10 years to boot the guy out of the UK because his lawyers played the human rights card and yup, the case eventually ended up in the EU court of human rights.

Eventually he was extradited, but not without a fight.
 
Let me give you an example. Abu Hamza, heard of him? It took a good part of 10 years to boot the guy out of the UK because his lawyers played the human rights card and yup, the case eventually ended up in the EU court of human rights.

Eventually he was extradited, but not without a fight.

So you're saying that the UK should just extradite people based on what governments of other countries say without first assessing the validity of those claims in its own courts?
 
So you're saying that the UK should just extradite people based on what governments of other countries say without first assessing the validity of those claims in its own courts?

I suggest you read about the case.

The UK government wanted to try Hamza in the UK BEFORE extraditing him to the USA, his lawyers argued he wouldn't get a fair trial despite the evidence collected by British authorities. Instead his case went to the Human right's court in Europe which shot down any chance of a trial in the UK.

It's a well known case, and one which fuelled the Brexit debate over how much control Europe/EU has over UK.
 
I suggest you read about the case.

The UK government wanted to try Hamza in the UK BEFORE extraditing him to the USA, his lawyers argued he wouldn't get a fair trial despite the evidence collected by British authorities. Instead his case went to the Human right's court in Europe which shot down any chance of a trial in the UK.

It's a well known case, and one which fuelled the Brexit debate over how much control Europe/EU has over UK.

I'm not talking about a particular case I'm saying generally is that what you are saying should happen?
 
I'm not talking about a particular case I'm saying generally is that what you are saying should happen?

Well I am refering to that particular case as an example how lawyers can buy time using the EHR as leverage making London a sweet spot for suspects/criminals.

But to answer your question, I prefer all liberals strapped to an acme rocket and slingshot towards the moon.
 
Well I am refering to that particular case as an example how lawyers can buy time using the EHR as leverage making London a sweet spot for suspects/criminals.

But to answer your question, I prefer all liberals strapped to an acme rocket and slingshot towards the moon.

What does this have to do with liberals? You're saying asking for a fair trial in a court is some sort of liberal agenda?
 
What does this have to do with liberals? You're saying asking for a fair trial in a court is some sort of liberal agenda?

Why is my view on what should happen with respect to extradition relevant to a Human's right case?

READ above. The trial was meant to happen in the UK, as it should, but then couldn't due to EHR.

Speak straight and ask me what you really want, or better yet, accuse me of a belief, label me, just as liberals would.

Oh since you havent read about the case, it was liberals who opposed his trial in the UK.
 
Why is my view on what should happen with respect to extradition relevant to a Human's right case?

READ above. The trial was meant to happen in the UK, as it should, but then couldn't due to EHR.

Speak straight and ask me what you really want, or better yet, accuse me of a belief, label me, just as liberals would.

Oh since you havent read about the case, it was liberals who opposed his trial in the UK.

You keep referring to one particular case where as I'm asking for a more general view
 
India’s technology minister on Thursday said video streaming services have to be “responsible and accountable” for their shows and movies, defending rules introduced last month that regulate such content.

India tightened its grip on social media firms such as Facebook and Twitter. The rules called the “Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code”, also require firms such as Netflix and Amazon’s Prime Video to classify content into categories based on viewers’ age.

A Pakistani version of Netflix is in the making, announces Fawad Chaudhry

The rules come at a time digital media or over-the-top (OTT) platforms such as Amazon Prime Video and Netflix face growing complaints in India about obscene content or hurting religious sentiments. OTT delivers content to viewers directly by the internet.

Among the highest-profile such cases, police last month questioned a top Amazon Prime Video executive for hours over a show that allegedly hurt religious beliefs. Amazon was also forced to issue an apology.

On Thursday, Indian technology minister Ravi Shankar Prasad said if companies had the right to create content, others had the right to have a grievance.

Disney CEO says households without kids have boosted streaming success

India’s new rules mandate tech companies including video streaming giants to set up a grievance redressal mechanism and appoint new executives to coordinate with law enforcement.

The three-tier grievance resolution system begins with self-regulation by the content platform and ends at a government-appointed panel headed by a ministry official.

“India is tolerant and will remain tolerant,” Prasad said. “But the limits of tolerance and standards of tolerance should not be judged on the creating freedom or abuse of a particular producer of an OTT platform.”

https://tribune.com.pk/story/229161...tforms-should-be-held-responsible-for-content
 
Police Search Sahara Chief Subrata Roy's Offices, Home In Lucknow

Police on Friday searched the office, home and other premises linked to Sahara India chief Subrata Roy in connection with a non-bailable warrant issued by a district consumer commission in Bihar, an official said.

A Sahara statement, however, claimed that the court has stayed the execution of the order.

Police searched for Roy at the Sahara office in Lucknow's Aliganj area and at other places linked to his company in Gomtinagar but failed to find him, Deputy Commissioner of Police (North) Qasim Abidi told reporters.

He said searches were on at other places in an effort to arrest the businessman.

The warrant was issued by the district consumer commission in Bihar's Nalanda on November 29, the DCP said.

He said some “important evidence” was found in the searches and police are taking further action on its basis.

The district consumer commission has charged Roy under the Consumer Protection Act for failing to comply with its order.

The Sahara statement said police "visited" Sahara Shahar in connection with the matter involving ₹ 3 lakh, which is before the consumer forum. It also claimed that the court on Thursday stayed any further action on the order.

NDTV
 
Nirav Modi's Request Denied, Can't Go To UK Supreme Court Against Extradition To India

Fugitive Indian businessman Nirav Modi has lost his bid to take to the UK Supreme Court his fight against extradition to India on charges of fraud and money laundering.

The 51-year-old diamond magnate from Gujarat, who fled India in 2018 before details of his alleged involvement in ₹ 11,000-crore fraud at the Punjab National Bank became public, had argued there is a high risk of suicide if he is extradited.

The rejection of his request by the London High Court on Thursday means he is now closer than ever to being sent to India to face trial.

Having last month lost his earlier appeal in the High Court, he does have at least one more option: approaching the European Court of Human Rights.

For now, he remains in a London jail since his arrest in March 2019.

The latest High Court order also directs him to pay the legal costs, assessed a 1,50,247 pounds (around ₹ 1.5 crore), news agency PTI reported.

His uncle, Mehul Choksi, who has taken up citizenship of Antigua and Barbuda, is also accused of cheating PNB and wanted by Indian agencies.

"We are far from satisfied that Mr Modi's mental condition and the risk of suicide are such that it would be either unjust or oppressive to extradite him," the High Court had said.

After last month's verdict against him, the first option Nirav Modi had was to approach the UK Supreme Court, but only if the High Court agreed that the case has to do with general public importance.

In India, he is wanted by both the Central Bureau of Investigation and the Enforcement Directorate.

The nub of the charges against him is that he and some firms he controlled used loopholes in the system by getting Letters of Undertaking (LoU) -- bank guarantees issued for overseas import payments -- from the public-sector bank PNB to get loans from foreign banks.

In simpler words, the bank guarantees allegedly helped Mr Modi raise short-term loans from foreign branches of Indian banks to pay to suppliers of raw material. The money was then transferred through a maze of sorts back to him, it is alleged.

NDTV
 
Back
Top