Journalism of Courage
Last week, a political analyst called Mithun Vijay Kumar sent a legal notice to streaming giant Netflix over an episode of The Big Bang Theory allegedly used a “derogatory term” against Bollywood actress Madhuri Dixit.
As per the legal notice, Kumar asked the OTT platform to remove the first episode of season two where the character of Raj Koothrappali, played by Kunal Nayyar, along with the character of Sheldon Cooper, played by Jim Parsons, compared Aishwarya Rai with Madhuri Dixit.
In the legal notice, Kumar pointed out that the remarks made by Kunal’s character were not only offensive but also defamatory. He also asked the streamer to remove the episode in question or face legal action for promoting discrimination against women.
The scene which Mithun Vijay Kumar took offence to involved an argument between Raj and Sheldon comparing actresses Aishwarya Rai and Madhuri Dixit. The duo seem to be watching a Hindi film – we never get to see which film but the song playing in the background is from Kaho Na Pyaar Hai, which does not have either actress.
Nitty gritties aside, Sheldon and Raj get into a disagreement about who among Aishwarya Rai and Madhuri Dixit is prettier. Sheldon refers to Aishwarya as “a poor man’s Madhuri Dixit”. To which, Raj, seething with anger, responds by saying that Aishwarya is a “godess” in comparison to whom, Madhuri is a “leprous prostitute”.
Raj’s comments are what have drawn Kumar’s ire, prompting him to send a legal notice to Netflix, which holds the streaming rights in India for the popular sitcom.
Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 deals with the term “Notice”. It says that except in the manner provided under sub-section (2) of Section 80, no suits shall be instituted against the government or a public officer in respect of any act purporting to be done by him in an official capacity, until after two months have elapsed since the “notice in writing’ has been delivered to or left at the office of either the Secretary’s office or the office of the General Manager’s of a particular railway if it’s intended for the Central Government or railways respectively.
However, it clarified that if a suit is against the J&K government, then the notice must be sent to its Chief Secretary or any other officer authorized by the government. Besides this, for suits filed against the state government, the notice should be sent to the State government’s Secretary or the Collector of a particular district.
The object of Section 80 is to provide the government and public officers with an opportunity to reconsider the legal position and settle the claim before going to trial, preferably without resorting to litigation. The intent behind carving this provision was to avoid unnecessary litigation and waste of the litigant and the court’s time and money. It is also to provide ample opportunity to the opposing party to examine the claim made against them and to respond to it appropriately.
If the notice is intended for a public officer, it should be delivered to him or left at his office, stating the cause of action, the name, description, and place of residence of the plaintiff, and the relief which he or she is claiming. Additionally, the plant also has to contain a statement that the notice has been delivered or left.
According to Section 80 (3), no suit instituted against the government or a public officer “in respect of any act purporting to be done by such public officer in his official capacity” shall be dismissed merely because of any error or defect in the notice, provided that the notice has the name, description and the residence of the plaintiff so as “to enable the appropriate authority or the public officer to identify the person serving the notice” and that such notice had been delivered or left at the office of the appropriate authority.
