![HC refuses interim stay on Netflix series](https://th-i.thgim.com/public/news/national/eqqg5j/article68447228.ece/alternates/LANDSCAPE_1200/Tribhuvan%20Mishra%20CA%20Topper.jpg)
HC refuses interim stay on Netflix series
The Hindu
Delhi High Court refuses interim stay on Netflix series Tribhuvan Mishra CA Topper, deems it comedy, not derogatory to profession.
The Delhi High Court has refused to impose an interim stay on the release of Netflix series Tribhuvan Mishra CA Topper, saying it appeared to be in the genre of comedy and cannot be perceived as derogatory to the profession of chartered accountancy.
The high court issued notice to Netflix and others on a plea by the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (ICAI) and four Chartered Accountants (CA) contending that depiction of the profession in such a "scandalous" manner is bound to defame the profession and the toppers in the examination that is conducted by the institute.
After watching the trailer for the web series, Justice Navin Chawla said he does not find any prima facie case in favour of the plaintiffs for the grant of an ad-interim injunction in their favour at this stage.
“In my prima facie view, I do not find the trailer to be referring to the profession of Chartered Accountancy in any manner. It is a series that appears to be more in the genre of comedy and merely describes the main character as a topper in the Chartered Accountancy examination.
“It is neither intended nor can be perceived to be derogatory to the profession of Chartered Accountancy or the toppers or rank holders in the examination conducted by plaintiff no. 1 (ICAI). Artistic expression, even in the form of a commercial speech, cannot be curtailed on the basis of an oversensitive approach,” the judge said.
The plaintiffs are aggrieved by the release of the trailer for the serial. The trailer announced the release of the series on Netflix on July 18. They claimed that the trailer showed the profession of chartered accountancy in an "extremely vulgar and derogatory" sense.
The plaintiffs complained that portraying the profession in such a "scandalous manner" is totally illegal and violative of their Constitutional rights.