Back
Kala Hiran Film Dispute: Seeks Salman Khan's Response on Producer's Stay Plea
The on Tuesday issued notice to Bollywood actor Salman Khan on an application filed by the producer of the proposed film “Kala Hiran: The Battle for Legacy,” seeking a stay of the actor’s pending suit against the film’s release. Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani directed Khan’s counsel to file a response, with the matter set for further hearing on .
The application, moved by producer Amit Jani, argues that the dispute raised in Khan’s latest suit is to an earlier suit already pending before the same court. Jani contends that allowing both proceedings to run concurrently would result in over the same subject matter—namely, the alleged infringement of Khan’s personality and publicity rights through the film’s promotional material and proposed content.
Background of the Dispute
Salman Khan had initially approached the seeking protection of his against the unauthorised use of his name, image, persona, and likeness by various social media platforms and e-commerce websites. In that suit, the court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction on . Subsequently, Khan moved an interim application specifically targeting the “Kala Hiran” film, seeking restraint on its release, exhibition, and dissemination, as well as the removal of teasers and promotional posts.
On , a of the High Court had already passed an ad-interim order directing the takedown of 23 URLs and restraining the release of the film’s teaser. That order was passed after Khan objected to the content, which he claimed exploited his name, mannerisms, and distinctive attributes for commercial gain without authorisation, and which allegedly injured his reputation.
Producer’s Argument:
Jani’s application contends that the core relief sought in the later suit—restraining the release, exhibition, and dissemination of the proposed film and its teasers—is “substantially the same relief already sought” in the earlier proceedings. The application further asserts that the in both cases arises from the same teasers, posters, and publications, with “no material distinction in the underlying facts.”
“They have moved identical prayers in the previous suit,” Jani’s counsel submitted before Justice Bhambhani, arguing that the continuation of the later suit would lead to two coordinate benches adjudicating the same questions. The producer therefore seeks a stay of the trial of the subsequent suit pending adjudication of the earlier one, and also a stay on further consideration of Khan’s interim injunction application.
The court, after hearing preliminary arguments, asked Khan’s senior advocate to clarify the nature of the earlier suit. “This suit was for ?” Justice Bhambhani queried. Prakash confirmed that the original suit concerned protection and that the High Court had already passed an order in Khan’s favour. He added that the dispute expanded after the announcement of “Kala Hiran,” which he said was connected to an incident from Khan’s life—the 1998 blackbuck poaching case.
The Film’s Readiness and OTT Concerns
During earlier hearings, Jani’s counsel had informed the court that the film was not yet in a “releasable state” as its contents were yet to be certified by the . The trailer had also not been released. However, Khan’s legal team raised the possibility that the film could be released on an OTT platform, bypassing theatrical certification. The court took this possibility into consideration while examining the matter.
While passing the interim order, the High Court had observed that the makers could not exploit the 59-year-old actor’s name, mannerisms, and other distinctive attributes for commercial gains without his authorisation, nor disseminate content that injures his reputation. The court noted that using social media to disseminate content that violates or harms reputation “exacerbates the mischief, given the speed, reach, and permanence of digital publications.”
The makers have clarified that the film is not Salman Khan’s biopic and argued that he cannot invoke “to erase” public events concerning the blackbuck controversy. Khan’s application, on the other hand, accuses the filmmakers of deliberately attempting to “sensationalise” the poaching case and make headlines at the cost of the actor’s goodwill and reputation.
Legal Analysis: and Parallel Proceedings
The present application raises significant procedural and substantive questions at the intersection of and civil procedure. The doctrine of and the are well-established in Indian jurisprudence. , bars the trial of a subsequently instituted suit if the matter in issue is directly and substantially the same as in a previously instituted suit between the same parties. However, the provision applies only when the earlier suit is pending and the later suit involves the same parties and same .
Here, the producer argues that both suits involve the same parties (Khan and the film’s makers) and the same (infringement of through the film’s promotional material). If the court finds that the later suit is a mere duplication, it may stay the proceedings to avoid conflicting judgments and waste of judicial resources.
From a substantive perspective, in India have been recognised as a facet of the right to privacy and reputation under . The , in several earlier decisions, has protected celebrities from unauthorised commercial exploitation of their name, image, and persona. The key question in the “Kala Hiran” dispute is whether a film inspired by a public incident—the blackbuck case—can be restrained solely because it makes the actor identifiable, especially when the film’s makers deny it is a biopic. The court’s earlier interim order suggests a protective approach, but the final adjudication will require balancing the actor’s against the filmmakers’ .
Impact on Legal Practice
This case serves as a reminder to litigants and counsel of the importance of avoiding parallel proceedings. For legal practitioners, it underscores the need to carefully plead the and relief sought in each suit to prevent allegations of multiplicity. The outcome of Jani’s stay application may influence how future cases are structured, particularly where a single alleged infringement gives rise to multiple legal remedies.
Moreover, the case highlights the evolving nature of in the digital age. The court’s observation on the speed and permanence of social media publications signals that courts are willing to grant robust interim relief to prevent , even before a full trial. This trend is likely to continue as celebrities increasingly rely on to control the commercial use of their identities.
Conclusion
The ’s notice to Salman Khan marks the next step in a legal battle that pits a celebrity’s against a filmmaker’s creative expression. With the court seeking Khan’s response and the matter listed for , the coming weeks will determine whether the actor’s suit proceeds separately or is stayed pending the earlier proceedings. Legal observers will be watching closely for the court’s reasoning on the issue, which could set a precedent for future celebrity rights disputes in India.
