[Bad Boy Billionaires] Is your conduct consistent with your desire?: Delhi HC asks Mehul Choksi

Observing that the conduct of the person invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India was a relevant factor, the Delhi High Court yesterday questioned Mehul Choksi if his demand of pre-screening a Netflix show could even be considered by a writ court. (Mehul Choksi vs UOI)

. A Division Bench of Chief Justice DN Patel and Justice Prateek Jalan was hearing Choksi's appeal against an order dismissing his petition seeking a pre-screening of Netflix's docu-series, Bad Boy Billionaires.

. A Single Judge Bench had dismissed Choksi's writ petition on the ground that the same was not maintainable on account of existence of an alternate remedy before a civil court.

.Delhi HC dismisses Mehul Choksi's plea for pre-screening of Netflix's "Bad Boy Billionaires". Choksi had sought a preview of Netflix's docu-series, Bad Boy Billionaires, apprehending that it would infringe his right to fair investigation and trial.

. Appearing for Choksi, Advocate Vijay Aggarwal vehemently argued that the matter should be remanded back to the Single Judge for a decision on the merits of the writ petition.

. " When I knock the doors of a constitutional court, it will not show me the door. A right is guaranteed to me in the same book which gave birth to this court. ", he said.

. The Court, however, clarified that the conduct of the party invoking writ jurisdiction was an important factor.

. Today, someone who wants a fair trial and investigation.. is his conduct consistent with this desire? Delhi High Court questioned. . While Advocate Aggarwal stated that Choksi has already offered to join the investigation through video conferencing, the Court questioned,

. " When did you leave India? When did you renounce your citizenship? "

. Remarking that " reality is stranger than fiction ", Advocate Aggarwal said that Choksi had left India for his medical treatment before the registration of any criminal case against him.

. Choksi left for New York on January 4, 2018 and took oath of allegiance in Antigua on January 15, 2018, and the CBI FIR was registered only on January 30, 2018, he informed.

. The Court nonetheless questioned as to what happened within eleven days that made Choksi take an oath of allegiance in Antigua.

. Antigua is only four hours away from New York where Choksi is recieving treatment for his heart aliment, Aggarwal replied.

. Advocate Aggarwal further pointed out that Choksi was yet to be declared a "fugitive" as per law and thus his civil rights were still intact.

. He also contended that the order of the Single Judge was a non-speaking order and that he had no remedy under the Information Technology Act.

. In response, appearing for Netflix, Senior Advocate Neeraj Kishan Kaul argued that for all practical purposes, Mehul Choksi was an absconder.

. "Writ is an extraordinary remedy. It cannot be issued is vacuum. ", he said.

. Calling it a "speculative" writ petition, Senior Advocate Kaul asserted that while the trailer did not feature Choksi at all, only two minutes were dedicated to Choksi in the episode on Nirav Modi.

. " It is based on interviews, snippets, books etc. A source chart is there. We've taken his interview.." , he added.

. Senior Advocate Kaul also informed the Court that decision to not release the series was a commercial one.

. The matter would be heard next on September 29.

. Senior Advocate Dayan Krishan also appeared for Netflix. Advocate Namit Joshi appeared with Advocate Aggarwal.

. Read the entire account of the hearing here:

[Bad Boy Billionaires] Is your conduct consistent with your desire?: Delhi HC asks Mehul Choksi

Aditi Singh

Related Stories