A writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is not maintainable for adjudicating private copyright infringement or plagiarism disputes, as such matters involve disputed questions of fact requiring evidence and trial; the appropriate remedy is filing a civil suit.

Headnote:(A) Cinematograph Act, 1952 - Sections 3, 5, 5A and 5B - Constitution of India - Article 226 - Copyright infringement - Writ jurisdiction - Maintainability - Allegation of plagiarism regarding film script - Whether remedy lies under writ jurisdiction - Court held that allegations of copyright infringement require detailed evidence, cross-examination, and factual determination which cannot be adjudicated in a writ petition - Writ jurisdiction is not meant for fact-finding in private proprietary disputes - Petitioner must approach civil court for resolution of copyright claims. (Paras 6, 7, 23, 24, 25, 29)

(B) Writ Petition - Maintainability - Existence of alternative remedy - Held, writ jurisdiction is restrictive where effective and efficacious alternative remedies exist, especially regarding disputed questions of fact like authorship and access - No violation of fundamental rights or statutory illegality in the certification process demonstrated. (Paras 8, 25, 29)

(C) Principles of Copyright - Idea vs Expression - Court emphasized that ideas are not copyrightable, and protection extends only to form and expression - Similarity in themes does not automatically establish plagiarism. (Para 6)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus to cancel the certification of a film under the Cinematograph Act, alleging the film was a plagiarized version of his registered script. The respondents contested the maintainability, arguing that the dispute concerned private copyright matters.

Findings of Court:
The court held that the certification process under the Cinematograph Act is a regulatory mechanism for public order and morality, not a forum for adjudicating private property rights or copyright ownership. The petition was found to be not maintainable as it required an evidentiary trial.

Issues: Whether a writ petition under Article 226 is maintainable for resolving copyright disputes or plagiarism claims between private parties.

Ratio Decidendi: Allegations of plagiarism involving disputed questions of fact (authorship, access, substantial similarity) must be resolved through a civil suit where evidence can be appreciated, as the writ court does not sit as a fact-finding body for private proprietary rights.

Result: Writ petition dismissed as not maintainable.

Table of Content
1. petitioner alleges plagiarism and demands cancellation of film certification via writ. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4)
2. copyright infringement claims require factual proof and specific evidence, making writ jurisdiction inappropriate. (Para 5 , 6 , 7)
3. writ jurisdiction is plenary but restricted when effective alternative remedies exist. (Para 8)
4. cinematograph act regulates content for morality, sovereignty, and public order, not private script disputes. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22)
5. certification by the board is not an adjudication process for private property rights. (Para 23 , 24 , 25 , 26)
6. prior precedents regarding censorship are distinguishable from private copyright infringement disputes; petition not maintainable. (Para 27 , 28 , 29)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECTION TO THE RESPONDENT NO.4, TO CANCEL THE CERTIFICATE GRANTED TO RESPONDENT NO. 1 TO 3 THE SCREENING OF THE FILM DHURANDHAR-2, HINDI MOVIE WHICH IS ALSO DUBBED AND RELEASED IN ALL SOUTH INDIAN LANGUAGES IN DIFFERENT STATES BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 TO 3 AND SUB DISTRIBUTORS AND OTHER THAN THIS IF IT IS DUBBED TO ANY OTHER INDIAN LANGUAGES AND OTT, ALL THE SCREENING HAS TO BE STAYED IN THE COUNTRY UNTIL THE DISPOSAL OF THIS CASE.

THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 08/04/2026, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

CAV O R D E R

This writ petition is filed seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus to direct respondent No.4-Central Board of Film Certification to cancel certification granted to the Hindi movie ‘Dhurandhar-2’ and to restrain its screening across platforms, alleging that the said movie is plagiarized version of the petitioner's original story/script.

Brief facts:

2. The petitioner claims to be a film writer, director and producer, who has authored an original script titled ‘D-Saheb’ based on a patriotic theme involving anti-terror operations. It is contended that the petitioner has developed the story, screenplay, character sketches and has registered the same with Screen Writers Association and other authorities.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that during the year 2023, he had shared the said script with various production houses and industry personnel, including respondent No.3 through intermediaries such as one Dinesh Kumar, who was engaged as a creative producer. The petitioner asserts that the respondents, having gained access to his script, have unlawfully copied the same and produced the movie ‘Dhurandhar-2’, which was subsequently released in multiple languages across the country. Aggrieved, by the alleged authorized use of story and failure of the respondents to give credit or compensation, the petitioner has approached this Court seeking cancellation of the certification granted to the film and for consequential relief.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that:

i. The petitioner is the original author of the story, screenplay and concept of ‘D-Saheb’, which has been duly registered and documented.

ii. The respondents, having gained access to the petitioner's script through industry interactions, have dishonestly copied substantial portion of the story, characters and screenplay.

iii. The impugned film, ‘Dhurandhar-2’ is a clear case of plagiarism and the respondents have unjustly enriched themselves by exploiting the petitioner's private proprietary rights.

iv. The certificate granted by the Central Board of Film Certification under the Cinematograph Act, 1952 (for short ‘the Cinematograph Act’ for short), is liable to be interfered with, as the very content of the film is illegal and violative of the petitioner's right.

v. Unless immediate orders are passed, irreparable injury would be caused to the petitioner, as the film is being exhibited widely across theatres and OTT platforms.

5. The points that

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 23466

THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKAK.S. Hemalekha, JSantosh Kumar .R.S – AppellantVersusAditya Dhar – RespondentWRIT PETITION No.10911/2026

A writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is not maintainable for adjudicating private copyright infringement or plagiarism disputes, as such matters involve disputed questions of fact requiring evidence and trial; the appropriate remedy is filing a civil suit.

Cases Referred (4)

THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
K.S. Hemalekha, J
Santosh Kumar .R.S – Appellant
Versus
Aditya Dhar – Respondent
WRIT PETITION No.10911/2026