Karnataka High Court Shields Film Certification from Plagiarism Drama: 'Dhurandhar-2' Screening Stays On

In a decisive ruling, the Karnataka High Court dismissed a writ petition by filmmaker Santosh Kumar R.S. , who alleged that the blockbuster 'Dhurandhar-2' —produced by Aditya Dhar , Lokesh Dhar , and Jyothi Deshpande —plagiarized his script 'D-Saheb' . Single-judge bench of Justice K.S. Hemalekha held that such copyright disputes cannot be resolved via writ jurisdiction under Article 226 , directing the petitioner to seek remedy in a civil court. The court refused to intervene with the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) certificate, emphasizing the board's limited role.

From Script Pitch to Courtroom Clash

Santosh Kumar, a Bengaluru-based writer-director-producer with Passion Movie Makers , claims he authored 'D-Saheb' , a patriotic tale of anti-terror operations. He registered it with the Screen Writers Association and shared it in 2023 with industry figures, including intermediaries linked to respondent No.3, Jyothi Deshpande of Jio Studios .

Kumar accused producers Aditya Dhar and Lokesh Dhar of B62 Studios of accessing his script and copying it wholesale into 'Dhurandhar-2' , now released in Hindi and South Indian languages across theaters and OTT platforms. Filed on April 22, 2026 , the petition sought to cancel the CBFC certificate under the Cinematograph Act, 1952 , and halt screenings nationwide.

News reports highlighted the film's star power, noting it stars Ranveer Singh and Sara Ali Khan , adding to the high stakes as it gained traction post-release.

Petitioner's Cry: 'It's My Story, Stolen!'

Kumar's counsel, Sri Rajesh K.S. , argued: - The script was original, registered, and shared with respondents. - 'Dhurandhar-2' mirrors his story, characters, and screenplay—clear plagiarism and unjust enrichment. - CBFC certificate under Sections 5A/5B must be revoked as the film's content violates his proprietary rights. - Irreparable harm loomed without interim stay on screenings.

The plea invoked R.G. Anand v. Delux Films principles but urged writ relief for urgent intervention.

Respondents' Silence, Court's Scrutiny

No arguments from respondents are detailed in the judgment, as the court focused on jurisdictional thresholds. It framed key issues: 1. Maintainability of writ for copyright claims. 2. Can Cinematograph Act Sections 5A/5B address private plagiarism disputes?

Decoding the Divide: Ideas Free, Expressions Protected

Justice Hemalekha dissected the idea-expression dichotomy , leaning heavily on the Supreme Court's seminal R.G. Anand v. Delux Films (1978) . The judgment quoted extensively:

"There can be no copyright in an idea, subject-matter, themes, plots... violation... is confined to the form, manner and arrangement and expression of the idea."

The court stressed that proving infringement demands "clear and cogent evidence" of access, originality, and " substantial similarity " via trial—beyond writ scope. Citing Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trademarks (1998) , it reaffirmed writ courts avoid fact-finding when civil remedies exist under the Copyright Act, 1957 .

Sections 5A/5B of Cinematograph Act were parsed: CBFC certifies for public order, decency, morality—not script ownership. No " manifest illegality " in certification warranted interference. Cases like Bobby Art International v. Om Pal Singh Hoon and N.P. Amruthesh v. State of Karnataka were distinguished, as they involved statutory violations, not private IP rows.

Key Observations from the Bench

The judgment distilled pivotal reasoning: 1. "The writ Court does not sit as a fact-finding [body] in matters involving... disputed questions of fact ." 2. "A surest... test... is to see if the... viewer... gets an unmistakable impression that the subsequent work appears to be a copy of the original." (quoting R.G. Anand) 3. "The Board's primary mandate... is to classify content based on statutory guidelines... not... adjudicating private proprietary rights disputes." 4. "Section 5A... is a safety and morality ‘filter’ not [for] plagiarism."

Verdict: Civil Court Beckons, Screens Roll On

"The writ petition is hereby dismissed, reserving liberty to the petitioner to avail an appropriate remedy in accordance with law, before the competent forum."

This clears 'Dhurandhar-2' for uninterrupted run, signaling filmmakers: plagiarism claims belong in civil suits, not censor board challenges. For aspiring scribes like Kumar, it underscores evidentiary hurdles under R.G. Anand—mere access and theme overlap won't suffice. Future writs against CBFC certificates face steep barriers absent public order breaches.