Allegations of Conspiracy and Continued Exhibition in Defamation Suits Create Triable Issues: Delhi High Court - 2026-05-27

Bata India Defamation Battle: Delhi HC Refuses to Drop Key Defendants in 'Jolly LLB 2' Dispute

The High Court of Delhi, in a recent order, has refused to dismiss certain defendants from the ongoing defamation suit filed by Bata India Limited against actor Subash Kapoor and various film exhibitors. The court held that the allegations of conspiracy and the willful continued exhibition of allegedly defamatory content after receiving legal notice constitute "triable issues" that must be resolved through a full trial.

Case Background

The dispute originated from a promotional trailer for the Bollywood film Jolly LLB 2 . In the trailer, a character uses the brand name "BATA" in a derogatory manner, associated with "cheap footwear." While a permanent injunction was granted by the court prior to the film's theatrical release—leading the producers to replace the brand name with a different word—Bata India proceeded with a suit for damages, alleging that the trailer caused significant reputational harm.

Multiple defendants requested their removal from the case, claiming they were unnecessary parties. Defendant No. 5 (the lead actor) argued a lack of creative control, while Defendants 6 and 7 (cinema exhibitors) cited the valid certification by the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) as an absolute defense against defamation claims.

Arguments: Conspiracy vs. Creative Intent

The plaintiff, Bata India, argued that the inclusion of their brand was a calculated act to associate the footwear with a "low class" status. They pointed to the fact that the lead actor is a brand ambassador for a rival footwear company, alleging a conspiracy to damage market standing.

In response, the defendants argued the following: - The Actor's Defense: Defendant No. 5 asserted he neither wrote the screenplay nor produced the film, and the slapping scene in the movie was a response to an insult directed at his character's family lineage, not the footwear. - The Exhibitors' Defense: Defendants 6 and 7 claimed they were bound by agreements to run the trailer as certified by the CBFC and that they were not responsible for the content of the film's promotional materials.

Legal Analysis

The Court dismissed these applications, determining that the issues raised were matters of evidence. Regarding Defendant No. 5, the court noted that his role as a brand ambassador for a competing brand and his admission of involvement in production decisions created enough "traction" for a conspiracy allegation to survive a motion to dismiss.

Furthermore, the court clarified that social media dissemination, such as re-tweeting defamatory content, constitutes an "independent act" of tort that warrants legal scrutiny. For the exhibitors, the court emphasized that a CBFC certificate does not grant immunity from civil liability in defamation, especially when the party continues to screen content after receiving a formal legal notice.

Key Observations

The judgment underscores the court's cautious approach toward summary dismissals in defamation actions:

• "Whether or not the plaintiff shall be able to prove its allegation is an aspect to be looked into at the conclusion of the trial."
• "In the light of the above observation regarding deliberate use of the plaintiff’s celebrated Trade mark... the allegation of conspiracy gains traction."
• "The independent act of applicant tweeting the defamatory content makes him liable to answer the claim for damages."
• "Just as the applicant contends that in view of the film certification, it cannot go into the question of judging the defamatory content... the probative value of the certificate cannot be accepted at face value."

Court’s Decision and Future Implications

The Joint Registrar (Judicial) Dr. Ajay Gulati formalized the denial of the deletion applications, noting that the pleadings are complete and the case is set for the admission and denial of documents.

This ruling serves as a vital precedent for stakeholders in the film industry, clarifying that distributors and exhibitors may not rely solely on CBFC certification if they are put on notice regarding potential defamation. For celebrity brand ambassadors, it also highlights the potential legal risks involved in tweeting or endorsing content that could be construed as infringing on the intellectual property or reputation of third parties.