Back
Refers Dhurandhar 2 Copyright Dispute to Mediation
In a pragmatic push towards alternative dispute resolution, the
has referred a contentious copyright infringement lawsuit concerning the song
"Rang De Lal (Oye Oye)"
from the blockbuster film
Dhurandhar 2
to mediation. Justice Tushar Rao Gedela, presiding over the matter, denied
to the plaintiff,
, while directing the defendants—
and
—to maintain detailed revenue records from the film's
theatrical release. Characterizing the row as "primarily financial in nature," the court emphasized resolution through royalties and compensation, scheduling the parties' appearance before the
Mediation Centre on
, with the next hearing fixed for
.
This development underscores the judiciary's increasing reliance on mediation in intellectual property disputes, particularly within the high-stakes entertainment sector, where licensing complexities often boil down to monetary settlements.
The Dispute at a Glance
At the heart of the litigation is
' allegation that
Dhurandhar 2
, produced by Aditya Dhar's B62 Studios, has infringed its copyright in the iconic track
"Tirchi Topiwala"
(variously spelled "Tirchi Topi Wale") from the 1989 Sunny Deol starrer
Tridev
. Trimurti, which holds the rights to the original composition, claims that
"Rang De Lal (Oye Oye)"
is a substantially similar version used without requisite licenses or permissions. The grievance spans multiple exploitation avenues: theatrical screenings, promotional materials, digital streaming platforms, and even standalone audio availability.
The film's rapid commercial success—amid buzz lifting PVR Inox stocks and projections eyeing Rs 1,300 crore as Hindi cinema's biggest franchise—has amplified the stakes. Trimurti argues this unauthorized use directly violates their exclusive rights, seeking injunctions and damages.
Background: From Tridev to Dhurandhar 2
Tridev , a 1989 action drama directed by Rajiv Mehra, featured "Tirchi Topiwala" as a memorable item number, emblematic of 1980s Bollywood's vibrant soundtracks. Composed by Viju Shah with lyrics by Anand Bakshi, the song's hooks have endured, often inspiring remixes and samples. , the original producer, asserts enduring copyright ownership, a claim reinforced in the end credits of Dhurandhar 2 itself, as highlighted by plaintiff's counsel.
Fast-forward to 2026:
Dhurandhar 2
, a sequel riding the wave of its predecessor's success, incorporates
"Rang De Lal (Oye Oye)"
—allegedly lifting melodic and rhythmic elements from "Tirchi Topiwala." Released on March 19 amid massive hype, the film has grossed significantly at the box office but faces OTT delay until mid-May, per B62's statements. Super Cassettes (T-Series), holding audio rights for the
Dhurandhar 2
soundtrack, is the second defendant, complicating the rights chain typical in Indian film music deals.
This case exemplifies persistent challenges in Bollywood's music ecosystem, where original soundtracks are frequently repurposed without clear synchronization or publishing licenses, leading to frequent court battles.
Arguments in Court
Senior Advocate Swathi Sukumar , representing , urged the court for urgent interim measures, stressing the "entirely unauthorized" use across platforms. She noted the song's standalone digital presence and proposed its excision from future OTT releases, underscoring .
Opposing vehemently, Senior Advocate Akhil Sibal for Super Cassettes accused Trimurti of approaching with " ," alleging suppression of prior instances where Tridev songs were used in other films. He contested any , asserting T-Series' legitimate audio rights.
Senior Advocate Ravi Prakash for B62 Studios informed the court of the film's theatrical run and assured no imminent OTT launch, mitigating urgency for injunctions.
These contentions framed a classic IP skirmish: plaintiff's strong moral/composition rights versus defendants' operational and prior-use defenses.
Justice Gedela's Bench Observations
Justice Tushar Rao Gedela astutely observed the dispute's financial core. As reported, the court stated: “Having regard to the fact that the statement has been rendered on behalf of defendant number 1 (B62 Studios), no is required at this stage.” To safeguard interests, it mandated: defendants shall maintain their record of accounts of all the possible and plausible exploitation taking place from the time when the movie was launched i.e. March 19 till the decision is reached by this court.
Further, noting parties' willingness: “In the meanwhile, the parties are referred to mediation since they are willing to settle their disputes by referring their matter to mediation. The parties are directed to appear before the Mediation Centre on .” The judge also remarked that the controversy appears to be primarily financial in nature , facilitating royalties resolution.
This balanced approach—rejecting injunction yet preserving evidence—reflects judicial economy in commercial disputes.
Legal Ramifications Under Copyright Law
Under the Copyright Act, 1957 (as amended), grants owners exclusive rights to reproduce, adapt, and communicate works. Music infringement often hinges on " ," a test from landmark precedents like R.G. Anand v. Delux Films (1978 AIR 1613), emphasizing originality and lay observer perception.
Trimurti's claim likely invokes adaptation rights for sampling/remixing without permission, extended to commercial exploitation ( ). Defendants' " " plea draws from equity principles, potentially weakening injunction bids if material facts were withheld.
standards— , , ( Wander Ltd. v. Antox India AIR 1990 SC 1938)—tilted against plaintiff here, given the financial characterization and no OTT threat. The revenue preservation order ensures accountability, akin to accounts-directed inquiries in IP suits.
Rise of Mediation in IP Litigation
India's push for mediation, bolstered by the ( ) and Delhi HC rules, shines here. Courts increasingly refer willing parties under , reducing backlog. In entertainment IP, successes like the T-Series v. Apple settlement or Phir Bhi Dil Hai Hindustani row highlight efficacy for royalty-focused disputes.
A senior mediator's appointment signals structured talks, potentially averting full trial costs and preserving industry relationships.
Implications for Bollywood and Legal Practice
This referral spotlights Bollywood's licensing labyrinth: producers secure sync rights, but publishing (music rights) often fragments among labels like T-Series. Digital proliferation—Spotify, YouTube, OTT—amplifies exposures, demanding robust clearances.
For legal professionals, it signals: - Strategic Mediation: Early settlement pitches in "financial" IP cases. - Evidence Maintenance: Routine in interim stages. - Scrutiny: Vital disclosure in pleadings.
Similar disputes ( Super Cassettes v. Hamar Television , NDMC song rows) affirm trends, urging filmmakers to audit vintage tracks. Amid Dhurandhar 2 's franchise ambitions, unresolved claims could dent valuations.
Globally, parallels exist in U.S. sampling cases ( Bridgeport Music v. Dimension Films ), but India's pro-mediation stance offers swifter paths. What's Next?
Parties mediate from , with Justice Gedela monitoring progress till . Success could yield a quiet royalty deal; failure reopens injunction battles. For IP practitioners, this case exemplifies Delhi HC's mediation-first ethos in entertainment law, balancing creator rights with commercial realities.
As Bollywood's IP wars evolve with AI remixes and NFTs, such interventions ensure harmony—or at least profitable peace.
(This article draws from multiple reports dated , including Bar and Bench, PTI, and others, ensuring factual fidelity.)
