Ashutosh Dubey vs Netflix, Inc & Ors. on 5 May, 2020 persons generally, such as lawyers, clergymen, publicans or the like, no particular member of the body or class can maintain an action." The view of Mr. Justice Willes in Eastwood v. Holmes (Supra) was approved by Lord Justice Holmes and Lord Justice Cherry as laying the sound law and strictly applicable in the case of (4) Brien v. Ason [(1913) 47 Ir. Lt]." (underlining supplied) 15. In Narottamdas L. Shah Vs. Patel Maganbhai Revabhai & Ors. 1984 Cri L J 1790, the Gujarat High Court while quashed defamation proceedings against the editors of a newspaper for publishing an editorial criticizing the prolonged strike by the lawyers and referring the lawyers as "kajia dalals" i.e. dispute brokers, held that the "writing published is relatable to the entire class of lawyers. The writing does not refer to any identifiable body of persons. So also the writing is not in respect to any group/class of persons as distinguished from the rest of the community of lawyers. To make out an offence of defamation the writing should be such that a person/persons to whom the writing is relatable can be identified. It is not even the case of the complainant that the writing is referable to particular group of persons as distinguished from the rest of the community of lawyers. Since the imputation, if any, is in respect of the lawyers' class as a whole and the same is not referable to a person or a group of persons who can be identified and can be distinguished from the rest of the members of the legal profession, there is no offence of defamation." 16. The Rajasthan High Court in Shah Rukh Khan Vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors RLW 2008 (1) Raj 809, held that "law requires that the defamatory statement, in order to be actionable, be made against a definite and an identifiable group. However, lawyers taken as a class cannot be identified with any particular individual-- indeterminate, indefinite, and unidentifiable as the members are: Firstly, the members of this class are too varied to be reduced to a few traits. Their is not a homogenous class, but a heterogeneous one, made up of wonderfully different individuals. Secondly, they are spread over the length and the breadth of the land. Thirdly, the class is always in flux, ever changing, as new lawyers enter and old ones depart the profession. The entire members of the class are clearly unidentifiable and indeterminable." 17. It may be noted that the stand of the defendants is that the web series is a work of fiction, the story thereof and statements made by the characters including the impugned content is only meant to be taken in the context of a figment of imagination and humour and not as a matter of truth. 18. Perusal of the impugned episode clearly shows that the impugned dialogue is spoken by the Protagonist while performing on stage as a stand-up comedian. The web series and specially the episode when looked at in its entirety shows that the protagonist performs on the stage as a stand-up at comedian after facing some adverse experience at the hand of a particular profession or professionals. Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/170570619/ 6