'My Constitutional Right To Fair Trial Will Be Violated If This Court Doesn't Intervene': Mehul Choksi Submits Before Delhi HC In Plea Against Netflix's Big Boy Billionaire

While addressing the Division Bench of Chief Justice DN Patel and Justice Prateek Jalan, Choksi submitted that the investigation against him is going on and he has agreed to join the same through video-conferencing.

Mehul Choksi has moved an appeal against the order passed by the Single Judge on August 28, 2020, whereby his writ petition seeking a preview of Netflix's Big Boy Billionaire prior to its scheduled release was rejected by the court.

While dismissing the plea, the Single Bench of Justice Navin Chawla had noted that the remedy sought by the Petitioner is private in nature which cannot be entertained in a writ filed under Article 226 of the Constitution. The court, however, had given liberty to Choksi to move appropriate forum to seek his remedy.

Today, Mr Vijay Aggarwal, who was appearing for Choksi, challenged that order by arguing that the same is a non-speaking order so far as it doesn't provide reasons for rejecting the writ petitions.

Mr Aggarwal further argued that the Single Judge did not consider the submissions made by the Petitioner, thereby showing inadequate appreciation of Petitioner's contentions.

Citing that remedy under Article 21 is available to non-citizens as well, Mr Aggarwal argued that the constitutional court has to step in, regardless of the alternative remedies, when the fundamental rights of a citizen are threatened.

While asking the Division Bench to send the matter back to the Single Judge for reconsideration, Mr Aggarwal argued that no civil court can entertain his prayer of seeking a direction to the central government to regulate the content on OTT platforms.

'I have no remedy under section 69A of the Information Technology Act, that's why I'm moving the writ', Mr Aggarwal argued.

Opposing the appeal, Senior Advocate Neeraj Kishan Kaul, who was appearing for Netflix, argued that the Appellant has not shown anything to this court to support the claim of maintainability of the petition.

'He is saying that his right to fair trial will be violated, but he has not shown to the court as to what trial is actually pending against him', Mr Kaul argued.

While claiming that the Sahara v. SEBI case has been unfairly cited by the Petitioner, Mr Kaul argued that when the information is already in the public domain, you cannot seek pre-censorship on the ground that it interferes with your right to fair trial.

The court will now take up the matter on September 28.