Back
Seeks Salman Khan's Response on Producer's Jurisdiction Plea in Kala Hiran Suit
The has issued notice to actor Salman Khan on an application filed by producer Amit Jani seeking the return of Khan’s suit—filed to restrain the release of the film “Kala Hiran: The Battle for Legacy”—on the ground that the court lacks to hear the matter. Justice Tejas Karia directed Khan to respond within four weeks and listed the application for further hearing on , alongside other pending matters in the case.
The proposed movie is stated to be inspired by Khan’s 1998 blackbuck poaching case. Khan had earlier approached the High Court with a suit, leading to a against the teaser and related clips. He subsequently filed a fresh suit seeking to prevent the film’s release altogether, arguing that it would cause him “immense harm.” Jani, however, now contends that the suit has been filed in a forum that does not have jurisdiction, and that the should be returned under .
Jurisdictional Challenge
In his application, Jani asserts that neither Khan nor the defendants reside or carry on business within Delhi’s territorial limits. He points out that Khan is based in Mumbai, while Jani and the other producers are based in Meerut, Uttar Pradesh. According to the application, the mere accessibility of the film’s teasers, posters, and related promotional materials across the country—including the national capital—cannot confer jurisdiction on the . The , Jani argues, does not plead that the film or its promotional material specifically targeted an audience in Delhi, nor does it allege that Khan suffered any distinct injury within the court’s .
Citing the decision in the matter, Jani’s counsel submitted that a person complaining about content disseminated through social media must sue where the greatest harm is suffered—in this case, Mumbai. The counsel further opposed the relief sought by Khan, arguing that an against a completed cinematographic work is an . A short teaser, he contended, cannot provide a complete assessment of the film’s context and overall impact, and therefore should not be used as a basis to restrain the entire film.
Court’s Direction and Earlier Proceedings
Accepting notice on behalf of Khan, the actor’s counsel, led by , did not oppose the procedural step. Justice Karia made it clear that the hearing was not a final adjudication on the jurisdiction objection, and directed Khan to file a within two weeks after receiving Jani’s reply. The court also noted that another application in the case—seeking recall of an order—was being heard the same day by Justice Jyoti Singh’s special bench.
This is not the first time the case has generated procedural friction. At the initial hearing on Khan’s suit, Justice Jyoti Singh had observed that Khan’s pleadings did not specify when the film was due for release and that no agreement between the parties was on record. Khan’s side pointed to materials suggesting a September release, and argued that while a theatrical release requires certification, an OTT release does not. Jani’s counsel, appearing virtually, initially said he had no instructions on the release date, then stated that the film was “not in a releasable form” as it was yet to be certified. The court recorded this statement with a stern remark: “Don't play games with the court.”
Additionally, the producer has filed a separate application seeking a stay of Khan’s suit on the ground that substantially the same dispute is already pending before the court in an earlier suit filed by Khan. Jani contends that the proceedings amount to concerning the same proposed film, promotional material, and alleged infringement of Khan’s personality or publicity rights.
Legal Analysis: in Intellectual Property Suits
The crux of the present dispute lies in the interpretation of , which governs the jurisdiction of civil courts. For a suit to be maintainable in Delhi, the plaintiff must establish that the arose within the territorial limits, or that the defendant actually resides or carries on business there. In cases involving online content, courts have developed a nuanced approach—mere accessibility of material does not automatically vest jurisdiction; the plaintiff must demonstrate that the content was specifically targeted at, or caused a distinct legal injury within, the forum state.
The reliance on the ruling highlights a growing trend in Indian jurisprudence to apply a “greatest harm” test for and defamation claims arising from social media. If adopted, this test could significantly alter the landscape for celebrities seeking relief in multiple jurisdictions. The ’s decision on this application may provide clarity on whether a holder can sue in any location where the offending content is accessible, or only where the claimant has substantial ties and suffers real harm.
The producer’s argument that an
against a fully completed film is an
also raises important questions. Courts generally avoid restraining the release of creative works without a full appreciation of their content. The absence of
certification further complicates the matter, as the film’s current status remains ambiguous. The court’s earlier admonition—
"Don't play games with the court"
—reflects its dissatisfaction with the shifting statements over release dates, underscoring the need for candour in interim applications.
Impact on Legal Practice
This case is being closely watched by intellectual property practitioners and media law experts for several reasons. First, it tests the boundaries of in the digital age, where content can be accessed nationwide but the alleged harm may be concentrated in one place. Second, it will likely influence how courts evaluate pleas for pre-release injunctions in the film industry, especially when the cinematic work has not been fully certified. Third, the outcome may affect how producers and celebrities strategise in disputes, potentially encouraging parties to centralise litigation in their home jurisdictions or where the primary audience is located.
Practitioners should note the court’s specific direction on timelines—Khan has four weeks to respond to the jurisdictional challenge, with a two-week window for his after Jani’s reply. The hearing is likely to be a critical juncture, as the court may either admit or reject the jurisdictional objection, and possibly determine the maintainability of the application.
Conclusion
The ’s notice to Salman Khan on Amit Jani’s jurisdictional plea marks another step in the ongoing legal battle over “Kala Hiran.” While the immediate question is procedural—whether the suit should be returned for lack of —the broader implications touch on the evolving nature of , online harm, and the balance between creative expression and individual dignity. As the case progresses, it will offer valuable guidance for both celebrities and producers navigating the complex interplay of entertainment law and civil procedure. The hearing will be pivotal in determining the forum for this dispute, and ultimately, the fate of the film itself.
