The Delhi High Court has directed the producers of the Hindi film Doosra to arrange a private screening for the judiciary to determine whether the motion picture infringes upon the personality and commercial rights of former Indian cricket team captain Sourav Ganguly. The order, issued on October 23, 2026, by Justice Vinod Kumar, marks a significant development in an ongoing legal battle initiated by the cricketer and the production house Luv Films LLP. While the court declined to issue an immediate interim injunction to halt the film's theatrical release, which proceeded as scheduled, it emphasized the necessity of a direct assessment of the film's content to resolve the dispute.

The court’s directive requires the defendants to file their written statements and replies to the pending injunction application before the next hearing, which is slated for October 29, 2026 . During the proceedings, Justice Vinod Kumar highlighted the importance of procedural fairness before granting high-stakes relief, noting, "I am of the opinion that the injunction application should be considered only after the parties have been given an opportunity to file their written statement." Furthermore, the court issued a clear instruction regarding the evidentiary basis of the case: "Let defendants make arrangements for playing the film so that it can be assessed as to whether the personality rights of the plaintiffs have been infringed or not."

Judicial Intervention in Commercial Disputes

The lawsuit arises from allegations that the filmmakers have commercially exploited Ganguly’s identity, reputation, and goodwill without obtaining the necessary authorization. The plaintiffs contend that the film, directed by Abhinay Deo, utilizes footage of the former captain’s leadership, professional achievements, and his iconic shirt-waving celebration at Lord’s following India’s victory in the 2002 NatWest Series final. According to the suit, such references constitute an unauthorized appropriation of personality rights, potentially misleading the public into believing that the cricketer is associated with or has endorsed the project.

The plaintiffs also point to a pre-existing contractual agreement dated August 5, 2021, between Ganguly and Luv Films LLP. Under this arrangement, the production house was granted exclusive rights to develop and commercially exploit audiovisual content regarding the cricketer’s life and professional journey. Luv Films claims that it has made substantial investments into an authorized biographical film, and that the unauthorized use of Ganguly’s persona in Doosra jeopardizes the market exclusivity and commercial value of its upcoming project.

Contentious Arguments Over Fictional Narratives

Representing the filmmakers, the defense has firmly rejected the characterization of Doosra as a biographical film. They have argued that the movie is a work of fiction, centering on the story of a young girl from Rajasthan who draws thematic inspiration from various sporting events and legendary figures in Indian cricket, including Ganguly. Counsel for the defendants asserted that the film does not seek to depict the life of the cricketer itself but rather focuses on a narrative of empowerment inspired by iconic moments.

A core pillar of the defense strategy involves the provenance of the archival footage utilized in the film. The defendants submitted that all necessary licenses for the inclusion of the 2002 NatWest Series match clips were obtained directly from the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI), which holds the primary rights to such broadcast material. They argued that because the footage is officially licensed, the individual cricketer cannot unilaterally assert personality rights to prevent its usage in a fictional context, particularly when the work constitutes an exercise of creative freedom.

Contractual Claims and Future Projections

The legal discourse surrounding this matter highlights the increasing complexity of personality rights in India, a field that has seen a surge in litigation involving public figures. Courts are currently grappling with the challenge of balancing an individual’s right to control their identity against the protected right to creative expression. The current dispute is distinguished from earlier precedents—such as those involving deceased celebrities—by the fact that the plaintiff is a living public figure with a pre-existing, exclusive contractual arrangement for an authorized biopic.

While the filmmakers argued that the plaintiffs' application for an injunction had become "infructuous" following the film's release in theaters on October 23, the plaintiffs maintained that the court still maintains the authority to grant an ad-interim injunction against further distribution or on digital platforms. By opting to view the film rather than granting an immediate stay or dismissing the plea, the bench has signaled a rigorous, fact-based approach to the litigation.

As the matter moves toward the October 29 hearing, the court will evaluate the arguments alongside the actual content of the film. The decision to observe the movie directly before adjudicating the injunction reflects an effort to avoid sweeping legal rulings based solely on promotional trailers or interviews. This case will likely serve as a critical reference for how courts distinguish between permissible references to public historical events and the unlawful commercial appropriation of a celebrity’s image. For now, the film remains in theatrical circulation as both parties prepare to present their formal written responses to the High Court’s summons.