On the 10th of June a bench of Delhi High Court consisting of Justice Sanjeev Narula in the case of Krishna Kishore Singh vs. Sarla A. Saraogi & Ors refused to grant pre-emptory injunction to restrain exhibition of “Nyay: The Justice.” The court opined that the film as claimed by the directors and the producers is based on fiction and the name or personal pictures of the late actor Sushant Singh Rajput is no where mentioned therefore the allegation that the film violates his right to privacy under Article 21 does not stand a chance.
Facts of the case:
An application was filed by the Plaintiff, who is the father of late actor Sh. Sushant Singh Rajput seeking ad-interim ex-parte injunction against the Defendants from using his son’s name, caricature, lifestyle or likeness in forthcoming films and other ventures contending that any such publication, production, or depiction would be an infringement of various rights including right to privacy and a violation of right of fair trial – under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
Contention of the Plaintiff:
Mr. Vikas Singh, learned Senior Counsel for the Plaintiff, made the following submissions:
- It was stated that the right to publicity of a celebrity is transferred to their direct descendant after their death and therefore the plaintiff is entitled to bring the present suit for protecting the reputation, privacy and rights of his deceased son.
- It was the contention of the Plaintiff that any depiction of his own or his son’s life is violative of the Plaintiff’s right to privacy under Article 21.
- It was further submitted that as a CBI investigation into the demise of the Plaintiff’s son is presently underway, the fictitious portrayal of the circumstances surrounding his death will prejudice the case of the Plaintiff affective his right to fair trial.
Contentions of the defendants:
The learned counsels appearing on behalf of the defendants argued on the following grounds:
- Defendant 3 clearly denied the use of the deceased’s name, image, caricature or style of delivering dialogues in his films. Hence, it cannot be said that there was a violation of the celebrity rights or right to publicity of the plaintiff’s son.
- The cause of action on the ground of defamation shall cease to exist upon the demise of a celebrity.
- It was also argued that since the life of the deceased has already become public, therefore, no question of privacy exists over that which is already in the public realm. Moreover, it was also claimed that the right to privacy of a celebrity extinguishes upon his demise.
- The defendants assured that the film is neither a biopic nor a biography of the Plaintiff’s son, but instead is a fictional rendition with creative dramatization of true events generally surrounding the lives of film or TV celebrities who have reportedly passed away due to unnatural causes.
- The rights of the Defendants under Article 19(1)(a) had to be balanced against the right to privacy of the Plaintiff under Article 21 and thus the defendants are not obliged to take permission from the plaintiff.
- It was also stated that this case was determinable by the Censor Board under the Cinematography Act, 1952, and thus the application was liable to be dismissed on this ground alone.
- The balance of convenience was in favour of the Defendants. If an interim order is granted, it would be difficult to compensate these Defendants, in case the Plaintiff ultimately does not succeed in the suit.
Observation and judgement of the court:
The Hon’ble bench of the Delhi High Court observed the following:
- As long as the late actor’s name was not used and a disclaimer was published along with the movie, the defendants cannot be disallowed from making a movie based on such events.
- Since the Defendants’ films are neither portrayed as a biopic, nor a factual narration of what transpired in the life of the actor, the Court found no to reason to grant a restraining order.
- Since the plaintiff knew about the promotion of the movie since August 2020 but he waited until now to file the suit close to the release of the said film, after substantial time, money and effort have been expended, for this reason, the balance of convenience lies entirely in favour of the Defendants.
The court taking the aforementioned into account held that if an interim order is granted, it would be difficult to compensate the Defendants in the event Plaintiff ultimately does not succeed in the suit. Whereas, the Plaintiff can always re-apply at a later juncture for injunction, if there is a change in circumstances after the release of the said film.
Accordingly, the application was dismissed.
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Share this Document :Picture Source :
