IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
SANJEEV NARULA, J.
Krishna Kishore Singh – Plaintiff
Versus
Sarla A. Saraogi and Others – Defendants
C.S. (COMM) No. 187 of 2021
Decided On : 10-06-2021
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908- Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 R/W Section 151 - Constitution of India- Article 21 – Hindu Succession Act, 1956 - Section 16 - Sushant Singh Rajput Actor – Suit for protecting the reputation, privacy and rights of deceased son – What are ‘celebrity’ or ‘publicity’ rights – Can ‘celebrity rights’ be enforced posthumously – Interim Ex-parte injunction – Seeking ad-interim ex-parte injunction against the named and unnamed Defendants from using his son’s name, caricature, lifestyle or likeness in forthcoming films and other ventures, contending that any such publication, production, or depiction would be an infringement of personality rights, right to privacy which includes right to publicity, cannot be undertaken without the prior approval of his legal heir; and a violation of right of fair trial - under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
Finding of the Court:
Plaintiff’s action is belated. SSR passed away on 14th June, 2020. News on his death was widely circulated in the media. Production of the said film was publicly announced in August 2020. Admittedly, in September, 2020, Plaintiff’s counsel made a public statement that, “no film, serial etc. shall be allowed on Plaintiff’s son without Plaintiff’s consent". Defendant No. 1-3 have filed numerous documents to show that the said film was being publicized and promoted since August, 2020. Therefore, Plaintiff ought to have been aware that these Defendants were in the process of producing the said film as early as September, 2020 – Suit is not premised as a tortious action for defamation. It is founded on the basis of breach of celebrity/publicity rights inhering to the Plaintiff. It is thus opined that if an interim order is granted, it would be difficult to compensate the Defendants in the event Plaintiff ultimately does not succeed in the suit. Whereas, the Plaintiff can always re-apply at a later juncture for injunction, if there is a change in circumstances after the release of the said film, and has an adequate remedy of being compensated by award of damages, if the Plaintiff proves in trial that the celebrity/publicity rights were inheritable and inured to him exclusively. To ensure that, the Defendants are directed to render complete and true accounts of the revenue earned from the films by way of sale/licensing of all rights relating to the films – Plaintiff has failed to satisfy the three-pronged test for grant of pre-emptory injunction to restrain exhibition of the films.
Result: Petition dismissed
JUDGMENT :
SANJEEV NARULA, J.
I.A. No. 5697/2021 (u/Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 R/W Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908)
1. By way of this application, the Plaintiff - who is the father of late actor Sh. Sushant Singh Rajput [hereinafter referred to as ‘SSR’] - seeks ad-interim ex-parte injunction against the named and unnamed Defendants from using his son’s name, caricature, lifestyle or likeness in forthcoming films and other ventures, contending that any such publication, production, or depiction would be an infringement of personality rights, right to privacy which includes right to publicity, cannot be undertaken without the prior approval of his legal heir and a violation of right of fair trial - under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
BRIEF FACTS
2. The Plaintiff asserts to be the Category-I of Class-II legal heir of SSR and absolute legal heir under Section 16 of Hindu Succession Act, 1956, entitled to bring the present suit for protecting the reputation, privacy and rights of his deceased son. SSR was a renowned actor from the entertainment industry, who worked in several blockbuster movies and television series, bagged multiple awards, and had attained the status of a public figure and celebrity. He passed away under suspicious circumstances on 14th June, 2020. The Plaintiff lodged an FIR on account of his unnatural death. The matter is being investigated by the CBI, and there is no conclusive report submitted as yet. As SSR commanded a huge fan-following, people of the country were deeply moved by his unfortunate and untimely demise, and it attracted widespread news coverage on electronic, social, and print media. The Plaintiff believes that the Defendants are trying to exploit this media frenzy and public curiosity surrounding SSR’s life and the circumstances surrounding his death, for their commercial gain.
3. In September, 2020, the Plaintiff’s counsel had made a widely circulated statement that no movies, books or series based on the Plaintiff’s son should be made without obtaining the prior consent of his family. Despite that, without approaching the family, Defendants No. 1 to 4 are making a movie which is a self-proclaimed “tribute to Sushant Singh Rajput” titled ‘Nyay: The Justice’ slated to be released on 11th June, 2021 [produced by Defendant No. 1 (Sarla A Saraogi) and Defendant No. 2 (Rahul Sharma), directed by Defendant No. 3 (Dilip Gulati), and outlined by Defendant No. 4 (Ashok Saraogi)]. It is pointed out that Ashok Saraogi is the lawyer of one Ms. Shruti Modi, who was the former manager of the Plaintiff’s son, and is being investigated as one of the accused persons in the CBI case. Similarly, Defendant No. 5 and 6 (M/S VSG Binge and Vijay Shekhar Gupta) are making a movie titled ‘Suicide or Murder: A star was lost’, Defendants No. 7 (Sanoj Mishra) is making a movie titled ‘Shashank’ and Defendant No. 8 (Nikhil Anand) is making a crowd-funded movie which as yet is untitled. Defendant No. 9 is a John Doe/Ashok Kumar impleadment of unknown persons, against whom a relief of the same nature is sought, by way of a pre-emptive measure. In this background, Plaintiff has filed the present suit seeking enforcement of John Doe orders against known Defendants No. 1 to 8, and other unknown Defendants, on the ground that their actions are violative of the right to publicity, the right to privacy and the right to free and fair trial.
CONTENTIONS OF THE PLAINTIFF
4. During the course of argument, Mr. Vikas Singh, learned Senior Counsel for the Plaintiff, made the following submissions:
(i) Celebrity rights have been acknowledged for the benefit of those who have worked hard to be known as distinguished personalities. It gives them the right to publicity, which allows them to control the commercial use of their identity and entitles them to the money that arises from their fame. Such celebrity rights are assignable and licensable for commercial benefit
A. Balakrishnan vs. R. Kanagavel Kamaraj and Another
A.V. Bellaramin and Others vs. V. Santhakumaran Nair
K.S. Puttaswamy vs. Union of India
Khushwant Singh vs. Maneka Gandhi
Managing Director, Makka Tholai Thodarpu Ltd. vs. Mrs. V. Muthulakshmi
Melepurath Sankunni Ezhuthassan vs. Thekittil Geopalankutty Nair
Nachiketa Walhekar vs. Central Board of Film Certification and Another
R. Rajgopal vs. State of T.N. and Others
Ravinder Kumar vs. State of Assam
Reliance Petrochemicals Ltd. vs. Proprietor of Indian Express News Papers Bombay
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.