On January 17, the documentary film Wild Karnataka will be presented in theatres. Sir David Attenborough narrates the documentary, which highlights Karnataka’s biodiversity. It was first shown in March 2019 in Bengaluru for a private audience. As of right moment, PVR theatres are showing it in 19 various places.

Filmmakers Amoghavarsha JS and Kalyan Varma collaborated with naturalist Sarath Champati and forest officer Vijay Mohan Raj to create the documentary. The Grammy Award-winning composer Ricky Kej wrote the soundtrack for the documentary.

I am sure the audience will definitely enjoy the film because it stars David Attenborough and has excellent music by Ricky. It’s also about animals from India, which I think is very contextual; so, we are hoping the audience will have a good experience,” Amoghavarsha JS said in an interview with TNM. The movie has underwater imagery, drone footage of elephants, and footage of dancing frogs. Numerous locations in Karnataka were used for filming, including BRT, Nagarahole, Agumbe, Bhimgad, Daroji, Bhadra Tiger Reserve, Koppal, Hampi, and Siruguppa.

In addition to working with the Karnataka Forest Department for over 20,000 hours in the field, the documentarians shot over 400 hours of footage. Sir David Attenborough was unexpectedly chosen to narrate the documentary. In addition to narrating the BBC series Planet Earth, which consisted of 11 episodes, each of which focused on a distinct environment on Earth, he has worked in other natural history films.

Contempt proceedings stayed against Netflix for ‘Wild Karnataka’ documentary

The well-known OTT (Over-the-Top) service Netflix was the target of contempt charges brought by the Karnataka High Court. However, the Supreme Court stepped in to halt those proceedings. The documentary “Wild Karnataka” was being streamed in violation of an earlier court order that prevented its broadcast, which prompted the contempt proceedings. After considering Netflix’s objections, a bench made up of Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud, Justices JB Pardiwala and Satish Chandra Sharma ordered the high court to temporarily halt the contempt proceedings against the massive over-the-top company.

The lawsuit started on June 29, 2021, when the Karnataka High Court granted an interim decision in response to a plea that Ullash Kumar and Ravindra N. Redkar had filed. The documentary and its raw video, which was received from the Karnataka Forest Department, could not be used, published, or aired in any way by the filmmakers or the platforms involved, according to this order.

It was alleged that agreements had been made with the Karnataka Forest Department by Mudskipper Labs, ITV Studios Global, Kalyan Varma, and Amoghavarsha for the documentary’s 2014 filming. On the other hand, it was alleged that they hired Icon Films without KFD’s knowledge and used their services without paying for them.

The contempt proceedings were triggered when the documentary was aired in cinemas and broadcast on several platforms, in violation of the court’s interim order. This led to an intensified situation. Netflix stated throughout the hearings that it would be prepared to reimburse the Karnataka Forest Department for any losses that were sustained, as did the other respondents, BBC and Discovery. Netflix offered compensation of Rs 4.5 lakh, while the BBC offered Rs 3.5 lakh. Discovery and Icon Films made similar proposals. The high court, however, expressed questions about the authenticity of the offers of compensation and apology, considering them perhaps to be dishonest given the amounts presented.

The Supreme Court’s decision to step in and put a hold on Netflix’s contempt proceedings shows that it carefully considered the case’s intricacies. The supreme court observed that Netflix had taken down the controversial video almost away and questioned the need to file a contempt lawsuit against the streaming service given its backlog of cases. 

This development highlights the changing landscape of digital content regulation and the complexities involved in striking a balance between artistic expression and legal obligations as well as environmental concerns, even though the original petition is still pending before the Karnataka High Court. The high court hearing has been postponed until February 8 in order to give more time for consideration of the issue.

The Supreme Court dismisses Netflix’s contempt charge for airing “Wild Karnataka. New Delhi: Despite the Karnataka High Court’s earlier decision forbidding its airing, the Supreme Court on Thursday postponed contempt proceedings brought by the court against the streaming behemoth Netflix for the release of the documentary film “Wild Karnataka.” The highest court ordered Netflix to transfer the movie’s profits toward a charity dedicated to the preservation of wildlife.

How is Netflix responsible for disrespect? The video was taken off right away. Why would Karnataka seek a contempt lawsuit against Netflix when there are so many other pressing issues?” Judicial Chief DY Chandrachud inquired.

The makers of the documentary, Sarath Champati, Kalyan Varma, and Amoghavarsha J S, as well as representatives of the UK-based distributor ITV Studios Global Distribution Ltd, producer Icon Films Ltd, and representatives from the television networks Discovery India and BBC United Kingdom, Discovery Communications India, and Netflix Entertainment Services India LLP, will all face charges, the high court decided on January 8.

The high court stated that the accused signed a memorandum of understanding (MoU) with the forest department, shot material, and sold rights to others in defiance of an interim injunction. The plaintiff claimed deliberate disobedience of the court order when the documentary was streamed until December 2023.

The Karnataka High Court first addressed the matter on June 29, 2021, with an interim ruling in response to a petition filed by Ullash Kumar and Ravindra N. Redkar. Filmmakers and associated platforms were forbidden by the order from using, publishing, reproducing, transmitting, telecasting, promoting, selling, or dealing in any way with the film and its uncut material that was acquired from the forest department. The petitioners contended that the producers made commercial profits from the video without the Karnataka Forest Department’s consent, despite the film’s non-profit character, which was meant for conservation and educational reasons (KFD).

The petitioners further stated that the movie was released all over the world and that the people who were involved made large profits without putting any money into the Tiger Reserve Fund. According to reports, KFD officials neglected to pay shooting fees and deposits, and they improperly used state-owned vehicles and drivers.