The has declined an urgent request for an on the theatrical release of the film Doosra , marking a significant, albeit preliminary, development in a high-stakes legal dispute concerning the of former Indian cricket captain Sourav Ganguly. The decision, delivered by Justice Dinesh Bhatt, allows the film to proceed to its scheduled release while the initiated by the former cricketer and the production house remains active before the court.
The dispute stems from allegations that the filmmakers behind Doosra engaged in the unauthorized of Ganguly’s public identity and iconic career milestones. The specifically identified the film’s trailer and promotional campaign as containing prominent references to Ganguly’s leadership of the Indian national team, particularly the historic 2002 NatWest Series final at Lord’s. Central to the claim is the inclusion of the famous "shirtless celebration" on the Lord’s balcony, a moment that remains one of the most recognizable images in contemporary Indian sports history.
Allegations of Commercial Misappropriation The legal challenge centers on the argument that the film intentionally leverages Ganguly’s reputation to generate commercial interest. According to the suit, Luv Films entered into an agreement with the former captain on , granting the production house exclusive rights to develop and commercially exploit audiovisual content, including a forthcoming biographical project titled Dada – The Sourav Ganguly Story . The argued that the promotional material for Doosra creates a misleading impression that Ganguly has endorsed or is associated with the film.
Counsel for the contended that the film treats the former cricketer as a "pseudo hero," noting that nearly one-third of the trailer’s footage depicts the athlete. The suit further cites an interview with the film’s director, Abhinay Deo, who reportedly discussed how the NatWest series victory and specific milestones from Ganguly’s career influenced the creation of the film’s fictional character, Tara. By drawing such explicit parallels, the assert that the filmmakers have crossed the threshold from artistic inspiration into the domain of of .
Defending the Creative Boundary Representing the filmmakers, the defense team maintained a starkly different interpretation of the production's intent. They clarified that Doosra is not a biographical work about the cricketer but rather a story centered on a woman from Rajasthan who finds inspiration in the athlete’s achievements. A pivotal point in the defense was the assertion that all necessary licenses for the use of the cricketing footage had been secured from the .
The defense further argued that the former cricketer does not hold individual
over the footage of public sporting events. During the proceedings, the counsel for the movie makers emphasized that the inclusion of historical sports clips constitutes a legitimate use of
and that the narrative’s reliance on these events does not equate to the
of an individual's
. Justice Dinesh Bhatt, while acknowledging the complexity of the arguments, declined to grant the requested relief at this juncture.
"I have said no stay, so the film can go on,"
Justice Bhatt remarked during the hearing, making it clear that the court was not inclined to disrupt the commercial release of the cinematic work before further examination of the merits.
The Evolving Landscape of This case underscores the growing tension between creative filmmakers and public figures who seek to exercise tighter control over their brand and likeness. In recent years, Indian courts have seen an uptick in where celebrities attempt to prevent third parties from capitalizing on their names, images, or life stories. These legal battles frequently force courts to navigate the delicate balance between the protection of a public figure’s privacy and against the principles of free speech and artistic expression in cinema.
The legal test for such typically requires the court to determine whether the use of an identity is purely descriptive or biographical in an artistic sense, or if it constitutes a that causes confusion among the public regarding endorsement. While the court has permitted the release, the broader implications of the case hinge on whether the references within the film serve as an essential plot device or as a strategic mechanism to draw viewers through the association with a high-profile sports personality.
As the matter proceeds, the legal focus will shift toward examining whether the specific promotional strategy employed by the filmmakers overstepped the bounds of permissible artistic reference. The court has scheduled further hearings to deliberate on the merits of the , which aims to address the alleged unauthorized use of Ganguly’s name, image, and iconic moments. For now, the film continues its scheduled path to theatres, while both parties prepare to present more exhaustive arguments regarding the scope of in an era where the boundary between public history and private identity is increasingly contested. The outcome of this case is expected to provide further clarity on the extent to which producers must seek consent when weaving historical sports triumphs into fictional narratives. The serves as a reminder to the media and film industries of the potential for significant legal challenges when creative projects lean heavily into the imagery and legacy of living public figures without explicit, binding agreements. The next phase of the court proceedings will be critical in establishing whether the current use of public footage qualifies as a violation or falls within the scope of .
personality rights infringement - celebrity endorsement claims - cinematic creative expression - legal dispute commercial identity
