Back
Bollywood Script Clash Ends in Courtroom Apology: Disposes Defamation Suit
In a swift resolution to a high-profile Bollywood feud, the has disposed of filmmaker Aditya Dhar's defamation suit against Santosh Kumar. Single-judge bench of Justice Arif S. Doctor closed the case on , after Kumar tendered an for his allegedly defamatory statements made during a press conference. The ruling underscores the court's preference for while preserving avenues for legitimate intellectual property claims.
From Press Conference Firestorm to Injunction Battle
The dispute erupted shortly after the release of Dhurandhar: The Revenge (2026) , the second installment in Aditya Dhar's action franchise. On , Santosh Kumar held a press conference, accusing Dhar of plagiarizing his registered script D Saheb , which he claimed to have pitched to major production houses in . Kumar's remarks, labeling the film as a direct copy, prompted Dhar to file Suit (L) No. 12101 of 2026 along with Interim Application (L) No. 12102 of 2026.
Dhar sought restraining Kumar—and platforms like (Defendant No. 3), (Defendant No. 4), and (Defendant No. 5)—from publishing or hosting defamatory content. On , Justice Doctor granted , barring further defamatory comments. Subsequent hearings on and beyond saw the court urging parties to "work out" the suit rather than escalate, with Dhar open to settlement if Kumar refrained from statements.
Plaintiff's Push for Silence vs. Defendant's Path to Apology
Aditya Dhar, represented by Senior Counsel and team from , argued that Kumar's public accusations irreparably harmed his reputation as a director. They emphasized Kumar's liberty to pursue formal copyright claims but insisted on silencing baseless plagiarism barbs. Dhar had no objection to disposing the suit if Kumar desisted from defamation.
Kumar, present in court and represented by Advocate , initially resisted a formal apology, with counsel claiming the press statements weren't directly targeted. However, after instructions, Kumar tendered the apology on April 30. Dr. Saraf promptly accepted it, stating Dhar did not wish to pursue damages. The defendants' platforms, represented by top firms like , abided by the without contest.
Judicial Nudge Toward Harmony, No Precedents Needed
Justice Doctor's approach focused on de-escalation, recording prior discussions where the court questioned pursuing the suit outright. No precedents were cited, as the matter turned on factual apology rather than doctrinal debate. The order clarifies that while defamation claims can be swiftly quashed via settlement, underlying script disputes remain actionable. This aligns with Bollywood's frequent IP tussles, where courts balance free speech against reputational harm.
Key Observations
"Mr. Bhura, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Defendant No.1 (who is present in Court) has tendered an apology for the statements made in the press meeting held on 30th March, 2026."
"Dr. Saraf, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Plaintiff submits that, in light of the apology tendered, the Plaintiff does not wish to precipitate the Suit for damages. He accepts the said apology and submits that the Suit can now be accordingly disposed of."
"It is made clear that if Defendant No. 1 has any claim to make against the Plaintiff with regard to the script of the film 'Dhurandhar: The Revenge (2026)', he shall be at liberty to do so and that this order shall not, in any manner come in the way of such claim."
Suit Closed, Script Wars Open – What's Next?
The court disposed of the suit entirely, continuing until closure and directing refund of court fees. Practically, this shields Dhar from further smears while freeing Kumar to file a fresh suit over D Saheb 's alleged copying—potentially under copyright law via the route.
For filmmakers, the ruling signals courts' readiness to enforce on defamation amid release hype but favors settlements to avoid protracted litigation. In Bollywood's cutthroat script market, it reminds creators: accuse boldly in court, not headlines.
