In a significant development, the Supreme Court on Thursday intervened in the contempt proceedings initiated by the Karnataka High Court against streaming giant Netflix for the broadcast of the documentary film ‘Wild Karnataka.’ Despite the high court’s prior order prohibiting its telecast, the Supreme Court stayed the contempt proceedings and directed Netflix to deposit the earnings from the film into a fund dedicated to wildlife conservation.
The Chief Justice of India, DY Chandrachud, questioned the rationale behind pursuing a contempt case against Netflix, emphasizing that the footage was promptly removed. The apex court’s decision raises questions about the legal implications of such cases and the need for a balanced approach.
The Karnataka High Court had on January 8 decided to frame charges against the creators of the documentary – Sarath Champati, Kalyan Varma, and Amoghavarsha J S, along with representatives of the UK-based producer Icon Films Ltd, distributor ITV Studios Global Distribution Ltd, and representatives from television channels Discovery India and BBC United Kingdom, Discovery Communications India, and Netflix Entertainment Services India LLP.
The high court’s decision was based on the allegation that, despite an interim order, the accused entered into a memorandum of understanding (MoU) with the forest department, filmed footage, and sold rights to others. The documentary continued to be streamed until December 2023, leading to the complainant claiming wilful disobedience of the court’s order.
The issue originated with an interim order issued on June 29, 2021, by the Karnataka High Court following a petition by Ravindra N Redkar and Ullash Kumar. The order prohibited the filmmakers and platforms involved from engaging in any use, publication, reproduction, broadcasting, telecasting, marketing, selling, or dealing with the film and its raw footage obtained from the forest department.
Despite the film’s intended non-profit nature for conservation and educational purposes, the petitioners argued that the filmmakers commercially profited from it without the approval of the Karnataka Forest Department (KFD). They claimed that the film, which was distributed globally, resulted in substantial profits for the individuals involved, without contributing to the Tiger Reserve Fund. Furthermore, KFD officials allegedly waived shooting fees and deposits, and the state’s vehicles and drivers were utilized without appropriate compensation.
The Supreme Court’s intervention brings into focus the challenges associated with legal proceedings involving content dissemination, especially when the content is intended for conservation and educational purposes. It prompts a reexamination of the balance between artistic freedom, conservation efforts, and adherence to court orders.
While the Supreme Court’s decision to stay the contempt proceedings acknowledges the removal of the contentious footage, it also emphasizes the need for platforms to operate within the bounds of court orders. The direction to deposit earnings into a wildlife conservation fund reflects a proactive approach to link content-related disputes with broader societal and environmental concerns.
As legal battles over content continue to evolve, this case sets a precedent for addressing conflicts between artistic expression and regulatory frameworks. It underscores the significance of aligning creative endeavors with legal obligations and societal responsibilities, especially when dealing with content related to environmental conservation.
The Supreme Court’s intervention in the Netflix ‘Wild Karnataka’ case not only stays contempt proceedings but also introduces a dimension of social responsibility by directing earnings toward wildlife conservation. This development marks a nuanced approach to content-related disputes, recognizing the dual objectives of artistic expression and environmental preservation.
