Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Neena Bansal Krishna, J.
Ruba Ahmed - Appellant
Versus
Hansal Mehta - Respondent
CS(OS) 498 of 2021
Decided On : 14-10-2022
Privacy - Right to Privacy - CPC - Constitution - [RIGHT TO PRIVACY] - [FARAAZ Movie] - [Section 151 of CPC, 1908, Article 21 of the Constitution of India, 1950] - The court discussed the right to privacy as a common law right and its relationship with the Constitution of India. It emphasized the inherent nature of the right to privacy and its applicability against non-State actors. The court also considered the distinction between natural rights and constitutional rights, and the balance between the right to privacy and the right of free speech under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. The court concluded that the plaintiffs failed to establish a prima facie case for infringement of their right to privacy.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiffs sought an injunction to restrain the defendants from releasing the movie 'FARAAZ', claiming infringement of their fundamental right to privacy and fair trial. The movie was objected to on the grounds that it may depict the plaintiffs' deceased daughters in a bad light in relation to a terrorist attack, causing emotional trauma to the plaintiffs.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the plaintiffs did not establish a prima facie case for infringement of their right to privacy. It concluded that the balance of convenience lay in favor of the defendants, and no irreparable loss or injury would be caused to the plaintiffs if the movie was screened. Therefore, the plaintiffs were not entitled to an injunction.
Issues: The court analyzed the right to privacy, fair trial, and defamation as raised by the plaintiffs. It considered the applicability of these issues in the context of the movie 'FARAAZ' and the alleged emotional trauma to the plaintiffs.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the failure of the plaintiffs to establish a prima facie case for infringement of their right to privacy, the balance of convenience favoring the defendants, and the absence of irreparable loss or injury to the plaintiffs. The court emphasized the inherent nature of the right to privacy and its applicability against non-State actors.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the application for injunction, vacated the interim stay order, and directed the matter to be listed for completion of pleadings on other applications.
JUDGMENT
I.A.13532/2021 (U/O XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 r/w Section 151 of CPC, 1908)
1. An application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 read with Section 151 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as "CPC") has been filed for ad-interim injunction for restraining the defendants from releasing the movie "FARAAZ" in any manner whatsoever, amounting to infringement of plaintiff's fundamental right to privacy and fair trial; to restrain the defendants from using plaintiff's daughter's name and also the name of their best friend Faraaz and their image/caricature/lifestyle/likeness in the forthcoming movie "FARAAZ" in any manner; to direct the defendant to remove all references/press release/videos/posters/advertisement/content/publicity material containing the names of the daughter's of the plaintiffs and also name of their best friend Faraaz and their image/caricature/lifestyle/likeness from all websites, television channel, newspapers, social media and or other modes of advertisements and promotion in any other mode of electronic or print media in respect of forthcoming movie "FARAAZ" amounting to infringement of plaintiffs right to privacy and fair trial; and in the alternative direction is sought to be issued to the defendants to hold a pre-screening before the court of law in the presence of the plaintiffs and their representatives to ascertain the infringing content in the movie.
2. It is submitted that the plaintiff No. 1 is the mother of one Ms. Abinta Kabir, who is also the Co-Founder and General Secretary of the Foundation Abinta Kabir which has been created in the memory of her daughter.
3. The plaintiff No. 2 is the mother of one Ms. Tarishi Jain, who is also the Co-Founder and Chairman of the Foundation - "Live Life Like Tarishi Foundation", which has been created in the memory of Ms. Tarishi Jain.
4. Both Ms. Abinta Kabir and Ms. Tarishi Jain lost their lives in the Holey Artisan (Dhaka, Bangladesh) Terrorist Attack on 01st July, 2016.
5. The defendants have produced a movie by the name of "FARAAZ" to which an objection has been taken by the plaintiffs on the ground that it may depict the daughters of the plaintiffs in bad light in relation to the Terrorist Attack on 01st July, 2016 which would be difficult for the plaintiffs as they would have to revisit the traumatic incident all over again. In several interviews, the defendants have informed the public at large that the movie is being made on the true-life events and it is also mentioned in the news articles that "FARAAZ" stood up for the lives of his two friends - Ms. Abinta Kabir and Ms. Tarishi Jain and refused to leave his friends. He could not save himself; he could not save them either.
6. It is stated that there is a reasonable apprehension of the plaintiffs that the movie "FARAAZ" has been created to show Faraaz Ayaaz Hossain as a protagonist or something of the attack, as the movie has been named after Faraaz Ayaaz Hossain. However, if such depiction is made, it shall be completely false as the plaintiffs were amongst the first witnesses to meet the survivors after the attack and are well aware of series of events. Glorifying or exaggerating upon one victim of the attack, will be a gross misinterpretation of the facts if the movie is portrayed to have been based on true events/inspired by real events.
7. Moreover, the facts pertaining to entire incident are a part of investigation and ongoing Court case pending before the Courts of Bangladesh and any movie created on distorted facts would only influence the case to the extent that it will hamper the ongoing matter before the Courts in Bangladesh. Moreover, the plaintiffs have come to know that some arrests have taken place in India with respect to said attack and the matter is sub judice. Making a movie on an event while the matter is sub judice before an Indian Court, is also violation of Right to Fair Trial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as "Constit
The judgment emphasizes the inherent nature of the right to privacy as a common law right and its relationship with the Constitution of India. It highlights the balance between the right to privacy a....
The court found that posthumous publicity rights of celebrities do not exist under Indian law, as such rights are inherently linked to the right to privacy, which ceases upon death.
Sushant Singh Rajput Actor – Suit for protecting the reputation, privacy and rights of deceased son - Film on actor being publicized and promoted since August, 2020 – Plaintiff’s action belated – Pet....
The right to privacy of an individual extinguishes with death and is not inheritable.
The judgment established the importance of an existing work for claiming copyright, the limitations on assignment of copyright, and the conditions for commercial exploitation of privacy rights under ....
The unauthorized use of a celebrity's name and personality attributes for commercial purposes constitutes an infringement of personality rights, warranting injunctive relief.
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
