Back
Bombay High Court clears Bandar OTT release with disclaimers after rape survivor's suit
Justice Abhay Ahuja allows digital premiere of Anurag Kashyap's film after both sides agree on English and Hindi disclaimers.
The on cleared the Over-The-Top (OTT) release of the Hindi film Bandar (also titled Monkey in a Cage ) after a rape survivor who had sued the makers for ₹2,600 crore agreed to the insertion of disclaimers at the start of the digital broadcast. The film is scheduled to premiere on streaming platforms on .
A high-stakes suit over life story allegations
The plaintiff, a woman who said she had filed a rape complaint against actor Karan Oberoi in , alleged that Bandar incorporated 19 similarities from her life without her consent. Her civil suit sought of the film's release under its Hindi title and claimed that the movie portrayed her as unstable, potentially influencing the pending criminal trial against Oberoi.
The film, directed by Anurag Kashyap and produced by , had already completed a theatrical run in after its world premiere at the Toronto International Film Festival. The makers claimed the project cost over ₹25 crore and was a work of fiction exploring systemic issues in the criminal justice system.
Court finds middle ground through disclaimers
When the matter came up on , Justice Abhay Ahuja declined to stay the OTT release, noting that the film had already been exhibited in cinemas. The court then directed the plaintiff to identify specific objectionable scenes, leading to negotiations between the parties.
During the hearing on , counsels for defendants—including actor Karan Oberoi, , and producer —informed the court that they had exchanged email drafts of disclaimers in English and Hindi. The plaintiff's counsel accepted the drafts " ," allowing a .
"The disclaimers tendered across the bar, which this Court has marked as 'X' and 'Y' for the purposes of identification, will be inserted in the OTT release of the film named 'Bandar' as well as modified versions including 'Monkey in a Cage',"
the court recorded.
What the disclaimers entail
The two disclaimers—an English version and a Hindi version—will appear at the beginning of the digital broadcast. While the exact text was not disclosed in the order, both sides agreed that their inclusion sufficiently addresses the plaintiff's concerns about the film being misconstrued as a depiction of her personal trauma.
Justice Ahuja accepted the and directed the registry to accept , effectively clearing the path for the premiere.
Implications for life rights in fiction
The case highlights the growing tension between filmmakers' and individuals' when stories bear resemblance to real-life events. By opting for disclaimers rather than an outright ban or monetary damages, the court enabled the film's release while acknowledging the plaintiff's concerns. Legal experts note that this approach may serve as a model for similar disputes, especially as OTT platforms expand their reach and biographical narratives become more common.
The criminal trial against Karan Oberoi, which is still pending, remains unaffected by this civil order. The plaintiff's suit for ₹2,600 crore in damages continues, though the court's decision suggests that claims of may need to surmount high when a film carries clear disclaimers.
The film is now set to stream on as originally planned, with the disclaimers ensuring that viewers are informed of its fictional nature.
