Professor MP Singh: Shaper of Constitutional Discourse
09 Mar 2026
Dehadrai Seeks Dismissal of Moitra's Dog Custody Suit
11 Mar 2026
Supreme Court Grants Bail to Porsche Father in Swap Case
11 Mar 2026
Natural Gas Supplies Prioritized Under Section 3 Essential Commodities Act Amid LNG Disruptions: Central Govt Order
11 Mar 2026
Delhi High Court Directs Ministries, CBFC to Implement Film Accessibility Features for Disabled Persons per RPWD Act Guidelines
11 Mar 2026
Foreign Nationals Entitled to Article 22(1) Grounds of Arrest in Known Language: Karnataka HC Sets at Liberty but Orders Handover to FRRO
11 Mar 2026
Madras HC Permits CBSE Student to Appear for Maths as Additional Subject Despite Policy Violation in Peculiar 'Rat Race' Circumstances
11 Mar 2026
Supreme Court Grants Anticipatory Bail to Neha Rathore
11 Mar 2026
Menaka Guruswamy Elected India's First Openly Queer Rajya Sabha MP
11 Mar 2026
Back
Next 
D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA
Jamiat Ulama - I - Hind – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
Headnote: Read headnote
ORDER
1. Upon being mentioned, taken on board.
2. Ms Vrinda Grover, counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, states that a limited relief is sought in these proceedings under Article 32 of the Constitution, namely, that a disclaimer should be made in the title of the film to the effect that it is a work of fiction.
3. Mr Harish Salve, senior counsel appearing on behalf of the fourth respondent, with Mr Ameet Naik, is not agreeable to the suggestion of the petitioner in regard to the introduction of a disclaimer.
4. The relief which has been sought under Article 32 can well be pursued in appropriate proceedings before the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. Hence, we are not inclined to entertain the petition on that ground, but, leave it open to the petitioner to move the appropriate High Court.
5. In the event that the High Court is moved and since it is stated that the film is stated to be due for release on 5 May 2023, the High Court may consider the request for early listing.
6. The petition is disposed of.Click Here to Read the rest of this document
The court's jurisdiction under Article 32 and the option to pursue relief through appropriate proceedings before the High Court under Article 226.
The court's decision emphasized the limited scope of intervention under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in film certification matters and highlighted the availability of remedies under the C....
Even in a contractual matter, if the state acts arbitrarily, a writ petition can be entertained under Article 226 of the Constitution. A writ petition for a monetary claim against the state is mainta....
The court confirmed that copyright protection extends to expression forms, not ideas, and prima facie establishment of similarity warrants injunction relief.
The Court emphasized that the Plaintiff's gross delay in seeking relief precluded equity, and found no substantial similarity or evidence proving copyright infringement or passing off.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
Listen Article