Case Law Details
Krishna Kishore Singh Vs Sarla A. Saraogi (Delhi High Court)
Conclusion: Plaintiff i.e., Sushant Singh father had failed to satisfy the three-pronged test for grant of pre-emptory injunction to restrain exhibition of the films and defendant had filed numerous documents to show that the said film was being publicized and promoted since August, 2020. Therefore, Plaintiff ought to have been aware that these Defendants were in the process of producing the said film as early as September, 2020. Plaintiff had filed the present suit close to the release of the said film, after substantial time, money and effort had been expended by Defendant on production and promotion.
Held: In the instant case, the movie titled ‘Nyay: The Justice’ produced by Defendant No. 1 & 2 and directed by Defendant No. 3, had not been released for public viewing as yet. These Defendants had argued that the said film was inspired by true events surrounding the lives of film or TV celebrities including plaintiff’s son who purportedly passed away due to unnatural causes, details whereof were widely available in the public domain and that the said film was a fictional rendition with creative dramatization of such true events. The said film merely drew inspiration from information already available in the public domain, such as news reports and articles, which formed a part of the public record. These Defendants had argued that the said film was neither a biopic of the assessee’s son, nor would portray the name, image, caricature, photographs etc., of either SSR or the Plaintiff himself or his family. Despite the fact that the films were yet to be released for public viewing, the Plaintiff sought restraint orders against their exhibition, not just against named persons, but also attempted to invoke John Doe jurisdiction of the court against unknown persons. The issue arose for consideration was whether Plaintiff satisfied the requirement of law for the injunction, as prayed for. It was held that the law on pre-publication injunctions was quite well-settled. Courts grant pre-publication injunctions only in exceptional circumstances. This reluctance was rooted in the importance attached to the right of free speech. Blanket injunctions or gag orders should be avoided, unless extremely imperative. The Court found merit in the contention of the Defendants that Plaintiff’s action was belated. SSR passed away on 14th June, 2020. News on his death was widely circulated in the media. Production of the said film was publicly announced in August 2020. Admittedly, in September, 2020, Plaintiff’s counsel made a public statement that, “no film, serial etc. should be allowed on Plaintiff’s son without Plaintiff’s consent. Defendant had filed numerous documents to show that the said film was being publicized and promoted since August, 2020. Therefore, Plaintiff ought to have been aware that these Defendants were in the process of producing the said film as early as September, 2020. Plaintiff had filed the present suit close to the release of the said film, after substantial time, money and effort had been expended by Defendant on production and promotion. For this reason, the balance of convenience lied entirely in favour of the Defendants. If an interim order was granted, it would be difficult to compensate the Defendants in the event Plaintiff ultimately did not succeed in the suit. Whereas, the Plaintiff could always re-apply at a later juncture for injunction, if there was a change in circumstances after the release of the said film, and had an adequate remedy of being compensated by award of damages, if the Plaintiff proved in trial that the celebrity/publicity rights were inheritable and inured to him exclusively. To ensure that, the Defendants were directed to render complete and true accounts of the revenue earned from the films by way of sale/licensing of all rights relating to the films. In view of the above, the Plaintiff had failed to satisfy the three-pronged test for grant of pre-emptory injunction to restrain exhibition of the films.
FULL TEXT OF THE HIGH COURT ORDER /JUDGEMENT
1. By way of this application, the Plaintiff – who is the father of late actor Sh. Sushant Singh Rajput [hereinafter referred to as ‘SSR’] – seeks ad-interim ex-parte injunction against the named and unnamed 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 personality rights, right to privacy which includes right to publicity, cannot be undertaken without the prior approval of his legal heir; and a violation of right of fair trial – under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Author Bio
