The has directed former Indian cricket captain Sourav Ganguly to provide a comprehensive breakdown of the allegedly objectionable scenes in the motion picture Doosra . In an ongoing legal battle concerning and , Justice Tejas Karia has tasked the plaintiff with preparing a table that specifies exact starting and ending timestamps for each scene deemed offensive, accompanied by a formal narration of the specific objections to those segments. This procedural directive, issued on Thursday, marks a significant shift in the litigation as the court prepares to conduct its own independent review of the film over the upcoming weekend.
The dispute centres on claims that the film, while marketed as a fictional sports drama, improperly exploits the life story, likeness, and professional identity of Sourav Ganguly without the requisite legal consent. Joining the former captain in the lawsuit is , a production company currently developing an authorized biopic about the cricketer. Together, the plaintiffs argue that the release of Doosra undermines their , particularly given that Luv Films holds specific rights to develop and exploit content based on Ganguly’s life, including his name, voice, and notable career achievements.
Navigating the Balance of Artistic Expression and
During the hearing, counsel representing the plaintiffs emphasized that the film, directed by Abhinay Deo, draws heavily from Ganguly's public narrative, most notably the 2002 NatWest series. They argued that the unauthorised depiction of these events, which are intrinsically tied to the cricketer's professional legacy, constitutes a form of commercial exploitation that warrants an . The plaintiffs urged the court to block the film, citing the potential for irreparable harm to the cricketer’s image and the undermining of existing commercial agreements.
Conversely, the defense has firmly rejected the characterization of the work as a biopic. Legal representatives for the makers of Doosra maintained that the story is a fictionalized account focusing on a young girl from Rajasthan who draws inspiration from various sporting events and figures, with the cricketer serving merely as a source of inspiration rather than the primary subject. Furthermore, the defense submitted that they have secured all necessary permissions from the and the , as well as the producers of relevant documentary materials, to utilize specific footage within the film.
Justice Karia, while refusing to grant an immediate, blanket injunction to halt the film’s exhibition, underscored the complexities of balancing competing interests. The Court expressed that it would be premature to order an outright block on the production before hearing both sides on the merits of the case.
"We can't just say the entire movie has to be blocked. That's not possible at this stage. I have not heard both sides on merits,"
the Court observed, highlighting the "movie versus movie" nature of the litigation.
Judicial Paths for Resolution
In a bid to steer the parties toward a practical resolution, the proposed several alternatives to total censorship. Justice Karia outlined potential "middle-path" scenarios that could mitigate the plaintiffs' grievances without necessitating a complete withdrawal of the film from public viewing. These suggestions included the implementation of a , wherein the defendants might compensate the plaintiff for the use of his persona, the deletion or muting of specific scenes or dialogues deemed particularly intrusive, or the addition of a clear, prominently placed at the film’s opening that explicitly distinguishes the work from an authorized biography.
The court's request for a timestamped table serves as a tool to identify whether the
is pervasive or limited to specific segments. By requesting that the plaintiffs isolate the portions they find most objectionable, the court is positioning itself to evaluate whether surgical interventions could satisfy the legal concerns raised.
"If you say the entire movie is not objectionable, say 30% or 20% is objectionable, then we will hear them on that aspect,"
the Court remarked, noting that a broad, sweeping claim of total
is more difficult to substantiate than targeted complaints.
The filmmakers have agreed to provide a digital copy of the film to the court for its weekend viewing. Simultaneously, the plaintiffs have been asked to submit a manuscript of the proposed film Dada in a sealed envelope to assist the court in understanding the extent of the alleged conflict with Luv Films' . Both sides are currently preparing their respective filings, including a formal rejoinder from the plaintiffs addressing the factual assertions made in the defendants’ reply.
Procedural Status and Future Hearings
While the legal proceedings continue, the film Doosra has already seen a theatrical release, though it is not yet available on streaming platforms. The plaintiffs’ persistent push for an injunction continues to be the central point of contention, even as the court focuses on identifying actionable infringements rather than enforcing an immediate shutdown.
The courtroom atmosphere remains focused on technical evidence as both parties prepare for the next phase of the litigation. The court has scheduled the next hearing for . At that time, Justice Karia will weigh the findings of the court's own viewing against the arguments presented in the timestamped tables and the documentation surrounding the permissions obtained by the filmmakers. Until then, the court’s decision on whether to grant any form of rests on the ability of the plaintiffs to clearly distinguish between generalized inspiration and actionable infringements upon personality and . The court's willingness to explore collaborative remedies reflects a preference for resolving the impasse through moderation rather than traditional litigation outcomes that could result in total suppression.
personality rights infringement - contractual rights protection - sports documentary licensing - unauthorized biographical depictions
