Back
1995 Supreme(Del) 80
High Court Of Delhi
KALEIDOSCOPE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED - Appellant
Versus
PHOOLAN DEVI - Respondent
First Appeal (OS) 305 of 1994
Decided On : 01/19/1995
A.H.Desai, ANURADHA BINDRA, ARUN JAITLEY, ASHISH VAD, Ashok Gumani, D.N.Sawhney, INDIRA JAISINGH, PARVIN ANAND, S.KRISHNAMURTHI IYER, V.D.MAKHIJA
The court has the power to grant an injunction against a person within its jurisdiction to take action abroad, even if such action would be lawful in the foreign jurisdiction, in order to prevent irreparable harm to the plaintiff.
Headnote:
BANDIT QUEEN - INJUNCTION - SECTIONS 9, 30, 33 ARBITRATION ACT, 1940 - ORDER 41 RULE 33 CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE - ARTICLE 19 (1) (A), ARTICLE 19 (2) CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - The court discussed the legal framework applicable to the facts of the case, including the principles of privacy law, the scope of restriction under Article 19 (2) of the Constitution of India, the extent of content provided by Phoolan Devi in her written contracts, and the potential conflict of laws issues arising from the international distribution of the film.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff, Phoolan Devi, filed a suit for permanent injunction against the defendants, including the producers and distributors of the film "Bandit Queen," alleging that the film violated her privacy rights and depicted her in a false and defamatory manner. The trial court initially granted an injunction prohibiting the exhibition of the film both in India and abroad, but later modified its order to allow exhibition in India while maintaining the injunction abroad. The defendants appealed the injunction, and the appellate court issued an interim order permitting exhibition of the film abroad.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the appellate court erred in lifting the injunction abroad pending the hearing of the appeal. The court found that the defendants had no prima facie right to obtain suspension of the injunction and that the exhibition of the film abroad would affect the plaintiff's reputation and potentially violate her privacy rights. The court also noted that the film contained scenes of rape and alleged murders by the plaintiff, which raised concerns about the application of privacy laws and the potential impact on the plaintiff's reputation.
Issues: 1. Whether the defendants had the right to obtain suspension of the injunction prohibiting the exhibition of the film abroad. 2. Whether the exhibition of the film abroad would violate the plaintiff's privacy rights and reputation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the following legal principles in reaching its decision: * The principles of privacy law, including the right to control the use of one's own image and personal information. * The scope of restriction under Article 19 (2) of the Constitution of India, which allows for reasonable restrictions on freedom of expression in the interest of public order, decency, or morality. * The extent of content provided by Phoolan Devi in her written contracts, which determined the scope of the defendants' rights to use her story and image in the film. * The potential conflict of laws issues arising from the international distribution of the film, including the application of different privacy laws in different jurisdictions.
Final Decision: The court restored the injunction prohibiting the exhibition of the film abroad and directed the defendants to take steps to withdraw their nomination of the film for the Oscar Awards. The court also prohibited Channel Four, the owner of the film's world rights, from making any further assignments of those rights.
( 1 ). At the outset, we have to mention why we are taking up this CM, even though we are proposing to hear the main FAO within a short date, i. e. may be within a fortnight. Firstly, when the FAO came up before us, we were in several part-heard cases, one of which was remitted by the Supreme Court for urgent disposal and another was a preventive detention case. Even as and when the main FAO is taken up, time would be taken for arguments and for the preparation of the judgment. In the meantime, the respondent contends that she is seriously aggrieved by the ad interim partial suspension order dated 22-12-94 passed by the Vacation Judge suspending the injunction granted by the trial Judge, resulting in the uncensored version of the film bandit Queen being exhibited abroad. "die order allowing exhibition abroad was passed at the instance of appellants (defendants 1 and 6) who, according to plaintiff, had admittedly no rights of exhibition abroad. Before the FAO could be disposed of, the application of the appellants treating the film as a foreign language film is being considered by various Committees abroad for nomination for the Oscar award at Los Angeles. As a plea of violation of valuable rights of the plaintiff was raised and a contention was also raised that the appeal stood virtually allowed at the admission stage for exhibition abroad, we have taken up the CM separately.
( 2 ) THE suit was filed for permanent injunction against five defendants and the 6th defendant was impleaded later. The 1st defendant (Mr. Shekhar Kapoor) is the Director, the 2nd defendant Mr. Bedi is the producer and a person entitled to exhibition of the film only in India (2nd appellant) and, he is M. D. of Kaleidoscope (P) Ltd. which is the 6th defendant (1st appellant ). The 3rd defanedant Channel four it the owner of the rights of exhibition abroad (except India ). The 4th defendant, Ms. Mala sen is the script writer who prepared the same from the prison diaries of Phoolan Devi whose contents are dictations by Phoolan Devi to her fellow prisoners about her life events. There are agreements between Phoolan Devi and Channel four, Phoolan Devi and Mala Sen and Mala Sen and Channel Four. Channel Four is the owner of the film and rights of the script and it got the film produced by the appellants and granted them only limited rights of exhibition in India. Mala Sen has a right to 2 per cent of income of exhibition outside India.
( 3 ) IN the suit, the learned trial Judge initially passed an order on 9-9-94 prohibiting exhibition in India, public as well as private.
( 4 ) LATER, after a full hearing, the trial Judge passed a 37 page order dated 20-12-94 and thought it fit to prohibit exhibition of the film both in India and abroad against all defendants. No FAO has been filed by Channel Four which alone has rights of exhibition abroad, nor by Mala Sen who has a 2 per cent interest in income abroad. FAO was filed only by Mr. Bedi (2nd defendant) and his company (6th defendant), who have only rights of exhibition in India. But the learned Vacation Judge who heard the FAO and this CM, passed in an ad interim order on 22-12-94 permitting exhibition abroad. He however continued the injunction within India.
( 5 ) THE point for consideration in this CM is whether the appellants (defendants 2 and 6) have any right to obtain suspension of the temporary injunction dated 20-12-94 and whether, even otherwise, the order of the Vacation Judge permitting, exhibition abroad should be continued pending disposal of the FAO ?
( 6 ) FIRSTLY, as already stated, the agreement dated 27-4-94 is an agreement by Channel Four with the two appellants (defendants 6 and 2) in respect of the right of exhibition of "bandit Queen" only in India,. The trial Judge s final order dated 20-12-94 prohibited exhibition of film both in India and abroad. Whether that was right or wrong has to be gone into in the FAO. In the absence of any appeal by Channel Fou
