Justice Tejas Karia of the Delhi High Court on Friday passed an interim order in a suit filed by former Indian cricket captain Sourav Ganguly and filmmaker Luv Films LLP against the producers and director of the upcoming film Doosra. The plaintiffs alleged unauthorised commercial exploitation of Ganguly's personality rights, identity, and professional achievements. The Court directed the defendants to insert a specific disclaimer at the start and conclusion of the film, in both English and Hindi, displayed in large font, clarifying that the use of Ganguly's name does not imply his acknowledgement or consent. The filmmakers were granted two days to comply with this direction.
The suit arises from an agreement dated August 5, 2021, between Ganguly and Luv Films LLP. Under this agreement, Luv Films acquired exclusive contractual rights to develop, produce, and commercially exploit audiovisual content, including a biographical film, based on Ganguly's life and career. Luv Films submitted that it had made substantial investments in the authorised biopic, completed principal photography, and undertaken licensing of exploitation rights, thereby creating third-party interests.
The plaintiffs contended that Doosra, directed by Abhinay Deo, makes prominent and repeated references to Ganguly's leadership of the Indian cricket team, his professional achievements, and the iconic celebration at Lord's following the 2002 NatWest Series victory. They argued that the film's trailer and promotional campaign exploited Ganguly's recognisable identity, reputation, and goodwill to generate public interest and commercial traction without authorisation. This unauthorised use, they submitted, threatens to undermine the commercial value and exclusivity of the rights acquired by Luv Films and prejudices the market positioning of the authorised biopic.
What interim relief did the Delhi High Court grant to Sourav Ganguly in the 'Doosra' personality rights suit?
The Court directed the 'Doosra' filmmakers to insert a disclaimer at the beginning and end of the film in English and Hindi, in large font, stating the use of Sourav Ganguly's name is without his consent or acknowledgement. It also ordered an unconditional bank guarantee of Rs 4 crore to be deposited with the Registrar General to secure his personality rights pending the suit's disposal.
Pronouncing the verdict on the interim injunction application, the Court held that the plaintiffs had established a prima facie case. The Bench observed that the film is not confined to depicting historical events but prima facie indicates that Ganguly's identity has been employed to generate commercial interest. The Court noted that the defendants exploited Ganguly's personality rights through the unauthorised use of his identity and persona, resulting in prejudice that impacts his ability to determine the manner in which his personality can be commercially used.
The Court rejected the submission that selective deletion of scenes constitutes a workable alternative. It further held that since the film has already been released, the balance of convenience does not lie in restraining the public exhibition of the movie. However, to protect the plaintiffs' interests pending final adjudication, the Court directed the filmmakers to furnish an unconditional bank guarantee of Rs 4 crore to the Registrar General of the High Court. This security is intended to secure Ganguly's personality rights until the suit reaches finality.
The defendants in the suit include the film's producers, director Abhinay Deo, associated production entities, and distributor PVR INOX Pictures Limited. The Court clarified that the present order is confined strictly to the interim application and shall not be construed as an expression on the merits of the main suit. The matter remains pending for final hearing on the substantive claims regarding the unauthorised commercial exploitation of personality rights and the breach of exclusive contractual rights granted to Luv Films.
Aspect | Plaintiffs' Position (Ganguly & Luv Films) | Court's Interim Finding |
|---|---|---|
Contractual Rights | Exclusive agreement dated August 5, 2021, for authorised biopic; substantial investment made; third-party licensing undertaken. | Prima facie case established for interim relief based on exclusive rights. |
Nature of Use in 'Doosra' | Prominent references to leadership, achievements, Lord's celebration; trailer exploits identity for commercial traction without consent. | Film not confined to historical depiction; identity prima facie used to generate commercial interest. |
Prejudice | Undermines commercial value of authorised biopic; prejudices market positioning; impacts Ganguly's control over commercial use of personality. | Prejudice acknowledged impacting ability to determine commercial use of personality. |
Relief Granted | Sought injunction against release/exploitation. | Disclaimer at start/end (English & Hindi, large font) within two days; Unconditional Bank Guarantee of Rs 4 Crore to Registrar General. |
Balance of Convenience | Argued for restraint on release. | Film already released; balance of convenience does not favour restraining public viewing. |
The order underscores the judicial recognition of personality rights as a commercially valuable asset capable of protection against unauthorised exploitation, particularly where exclusive contractual arrangements exist. The requirement of a substantial bank guarantee signals the Court's assessment of the potential quantum of damages should the plaintiffs succeed at trial. The direction for a prominent disclaimer serves as a mitigating measure against consumer confusion and misappropriation of goodwill pending the final determination of the suit.