The Delhi High Court has issued a significant interim directive to the producers and directors of the film Doosra , requiring them to display a prominent disclaimer acknowledging the lack of consent from former Indian cricket captain Sourav Ganguly regarding the use of his identity and professional legacy. The order, delivered by Justice Tejas Karia on Friday , aims to address concerns regarding the unauthorized commercial exploitation of the celebrated athlete’s image, professional achievements, and public persona.

Under the court’s mandate, the filmmakers are now required to insert a clear statement at both the beginning and the end of the film. This disclaimer must explicitly clarify that the movie was not intended to infringe upon the personality rights of Sourav Ganguly. Furthermore, the text must state that the use of the cricket legend's name in the film is not to be construed as an acknowledgement, endorsement, or consent from him to such use. To ensure compliance, the court has specified that these notices must be presented in large, legible fonts in both English and Hindi and must be implemented within a strict two-day window .

Navigating the Balance of Commercial and Personality Interests

The judicial intervention comes in response to an interim injunction application filed by Sourav Ganguly alongside the production house Luv Films LLP . The lawsuit alleges an unauthorized commercial use of the former captain's personality, identity, and professional milestones. The litigation names the film's primary producers, director Abhinay Deo, various production entities, and the film’s distributor, PVR INOX , as defendants.

During the pronouncement of the verdict, the court acknowledged that the plaintiffs had established a prima facie case for an interim injunction . However, in determining the scope of the relief, the court had to grapple with the practical realities of a film that has already been released to the public. The court observed that the selective deletion of specific scenes containing references to Ganguly was not a workable alternative. Noting that the film has already hit screens, the court concluded that the balance of convenience did not lie in restraining the public from viewing the film, as that would cause disproportionate harm to the distributors and the audience. Instead, it opted for a regulatory, transparency-based solution that protects the individual’s interests without necessitating the removal of content.

The High Court further observed that the film’s narrative scope appeared to extend beyond the mere depiction of historical events related to cricket. According to the court's prima facie analysis, the film’s use of Ganguly’s identity indicates that his persona has been intentionally employed to generate commercial interest in the project. This distinction between a biographical record and a commercial endeavor using a celebrity's identity remains a central focus of the ongoing legal battle.

Defining the Boundaries of Public Persona

The legal principle at the heart of this dispute revolves around the evolving landscape of personality rights in India. Traditionally, such rights—often referred to as ' right of publicity '—protect individuals from the unauthorized use of their name, likeness, or other identifiable aspects of their identity for commercial gain. While public figures are subject to scrutiny and historical commentary, the law increasingly recognizes that the ability to monetize one’s identity is a personal property right that requires explicit consent.

This ruling mirrors an ongoing trend in the Delhi High Court , which has become a frequent forum for high-profile figures seeking to protect their proprietary interests. The court’s approach reflects a shift toward balancing the freedom of artistic expression in media with the individual's right to control their commercial image. By mandating a specific disclaimer rather than an outright ban, the court is essentially creating a framework where the public remains informed about the lack of an official association between the subject and the work, thereby mitigating potential deception.

The litigation involves a complex web of production and distribution entities, highlighting the challenges of attributing liability in modern cinema. With directors and production houses often sharing responsibilities, the court’s focus on the primary creative forces suggests a strict enforcement of accountability. The requirement for the disclaimer to be displayed in both English and Hindi emphasizes the broad, pan-Indian reach of the cinema industry and the court's intent to ensure the message is accessible to the entire viewing demographic.

The Path Forward for Intellectual Property Claims

As the legal proceedings continue, the focus will likely shift toward the final determination of whether the use of Ganguly’s identity constitutes a violation of his personality rights under broader tort law or specific intellectual property frameworks. The court’s initial findings indicate a sensitivity to the nuances of biographical narratives; however, it remains steadfast on the requirement that viewers be clearly informed when a project lacks the endorsement of the person whose life or image it profiles.

For the legal community, this case serves as a notable reminder of the procedural expectations for injunction applications. The court’s refusal to order a complete halt to the film’s circulation in favor of a disclosure mandate provides a clear blueprint for how judicial bodies might handle similar grievances in the future. The directive serves as a practical safeguard that prevents potential confusion while respecting the existing investments made by the distributors.

For now, the immediate obligation lies with the production team to fulfill the court's requirements within the two-day timeframe. As the suit moves toward a final hearing, the legal teams involved will likely focus on proving the degree of commercial gain derived from the use of the athlete's name versus the creative necessity of his inclusion in the narrative. The court has set the stage for a resolution that balances the protection of personal brand equity with the realities of the film distribution sector. The parties are now expected to adhere to the court's instructions, and any failure to display the mandatory disclaimers in the specified format could lead to further complications as the case progresses through the judicial system.