Back
Bombay HC Restrains Filmmaker in Dhurandhar Defamation Case
In a swift judicial intervention amid Bollywood's intensifying script disputes, the on , granted to writer-director Aditya Dhar , restraining independent filmmaker Santosh Kumar RS from repeating or making further defamatory statements alleging plagiarism in the blockbuster film Dhurandhar: The Revenge . Single Judge Justice Arif Doctor observed that Dhar had established a , issuing an amid Kumar's non-appearance despite notice. The matter is listed for further hearing on , highlighting the court's readiness to protect reputations from viral media accusations in the entertainment sector.
This defamation suit underscores the growing friction between creative claims and public discourse, as Kumar's press conference allegations—claiming Dhar copied his registered script D Saheb —spread rapidly online, prompting Dhar to seek injunction and damages.
Background of the Dhurandhar Plagiarism Controversy
The controversy erupted shortly after the , release of Dhurandhar: The Revenge , the sequel to the hit Dhurandhar . Directed by Aditya Dhar and featuring stars like Ranveer Singh, Sanjay Dutt, Arjun Rampal, and R. Madhavan, the spy thriller has dominated the box office. However, celebrations were overshadowed when Santosh Kumar held a press conference, accusing Dhar and his team of lifting his original script titled D Saheb .
Kumar claimed he had registered
D Saheb
with the
in
and pitched it to major production houses. According to reports, he alleged that
"even before anything could proceed further, Dhar copied his script and made the film in question."
Videos and clips from the press meet were
"independently uploaded, republished, and circulated by various accounts,"
leading to "widespread and repeated dissemination," as detailed in Dhar's plaint.
Dhar's suit described Kumar's statements as
"several false, scandalous, grossly defamatory, derogatory and denigrating statements about the Plaintiff which harm and malign the reputation and goodwill of the Plaintiff, before the world at large."
The plaintiff and his team were "shocked and dismayed" by the viral reach, emphasizing the digital amplification of potentially libelous content in today's media landscape.
The Defamation Suit and Pre-Litigation Efforts
Responding promptly, Dhar issued a legal notice to Kumar, denying any plagiarism and demanding he refrain from "unsubstantiated allegations." The notice highlighted the baseless nature of the claims and their damage to Dhar's repute, especially given the film's success. Dhar urged Kumar to channel grievances through proper legal channels, noting Kumar's own press conference mention of impending action.
Despite this, Kumar neither responded nor retracted, prompting Dhar—represented by —to file a defamation suit in the . The plaint sought a , damages, and interim relief, arguing the statements caused amid the film's ongoing run.
This sequence reflects a standard pre-litigation protocol in Indian defamation matters: serve as evidence of if ignored, strengthening claims for .
Proceedings Before the Bombay High Court
The matter came before Justice Arif Doctor on Wednesday, April 8. Senior Advocate , appearing for Dhar, made brief yet compelling submissions. Saraf stressed the continued media defamatory barbs, stating:
"All I seek is, if he has a grievance about infringement, he himself said I am going to initiate legal proceedings. He can initiate legal proceedings, and I will respond to the same appropriately. But in the meanwhile, he can’t use such language."
Saraf underscored the prejudicial impact on Dhar's reputation, particularly as the allegations persisted post-notice. Notably, though served, neither Kumar nor any counsel appeared, leading to ex-parte proceedings.
The court, having considered the contentions, swiftly recognized the urgency.
Justice Doctor's Ad-Interim Order
Passing the
ex-parte interim order
, Justice Doctor restrained Kumar
"from making comments or repeating comments made against Dhar and his film till further orders."
More precisely, the order directed:
"Until the next date, the defendant (Kumar) shall be restrained from repeating words and remarks set out in the suit (filed by Dhar) and all other allegations of a similar nature."
The bench observed:
"In my view, the plaintiff has made out a case for the grant of limited."
Notice was issued to Kumar, with the matter adjourned to . The order was limited and specific to Kumar, balancing immediate protection without prejudging merits.
This relief provides temporary respite, halting further public mudslinging while allowing Kumar to file his plagiarism suit—if any.
Key Arguments and Court Observations
Saraf's advocacy focused on three pillars: the falsity and virality of statements, ongoing reputational harm, and the propriety of court over media trials. The court's prima facie finding aligns with established tests for interim injunctions under —a strong case on record, likelihood of irreparable injury, and favorable .
Kumar's silence amplified Dhar's position, as non-response to notice often signals lack of defense at interim stage.
Legal Analysis: Defamation and Interim Relief in India
Under Indian law, defamation is both civil (tortious) and criminal ( ), actionable if statements are false, published, and harmful to reputation. Here, Kumar's press conference qualifies as via third-party dissemination (videos online), satisfying publication.
Interim injunctions in defamation are cautiously granted to avoid chilling free speech, per Supreme Court precedents like Ratan Tata v. Greenpeace (2015), emphasizing "clearer persuasive burden." However, courts intervene where speech is mala fide or commercially motivated, as potentially here—plagiarism claims pre-litigation.
The likely hinged on script registration not conferring copyright monopoly (ideas unprotected), absence of evidence shared with Dhar's team, and film's basis in "Rehman Dakait’s real story" (per sources). Digital virality bolsters , as retractions seldom erase online footprints.
This mirrors cases like Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India (2016), upholding reputation as fundamental right, and entertainment disputes (e.g., Anubhav Sinha's suits).
Implications for Entertainment Law and Media Practice
For legal professionals, this ruling signals courts' intolerance for " " in IP tussles. Filmmakers/scriptwriters must weigh public accusations' risks—ex-parte gags possible if prima facie defamatory. Entertainment litigators note rising suits post-OTT boom, with script registrations (non-binding) insufficient sans proof.
Media lawyers face challenges tracking viral clips for injunction compliance. Platforms may see more takedown notices under . Broader: Reinforces channeling IP grievances ( ) via suits, not PR wars, protecting Bollywood's Rs. 18,000 crore ecosystem.
Impacts include heightened caution for producers (NDAs, provenance docs) and defendants (respond promptly). Globally, akin to Hollywood's NDA-enforced secrecy.
Looking Ahead
As Dhurandhar: The Revenge thrives, the hearing looms critical—Kumar may counter with infringement evidence, escalating to full IP trial. Dhar's win underscores judicial efficiency in high-stakes defamation, a boon for creators guarding goodwill.
Legal eagles will watch for appeals or SC guidance on media restraints. Until then, Kumar's silence and the gag order maintain uneasy truce in this script saga.
