Back
Salman Khan's Suit: Records Film 'Kala Hiran' Not Releasable
The on Thursday recorded a crucial statement from the makers of the proposed film Kala Hiran: The Battle for Legacy that the movie is not yet in a "" as its content awaits certification from the . The statement came during the hearing of actor Salman Khan's suit seeking to restrain the film's release on any platform, alleging infringement of his .
Justice Jyoti Singh, presiding over the matter, took the submission on record and directed the defendant to file a reply within two weeks, with the matter now listed for further hearing on . The court also noted that Khan's counsel raised the issue of a potential OTT release, which does not require CBFC certification, and recorded that concern as well.
Background: The Blackbuck Case and the Film
The controversy stems from a film that its makers have acknowledged is "inspired by" the blackbuck poaching case in which Salman Khan was accused. Although Khan was acquitted under the by a Rajasthan court, the film's promotional material—including a poster released in —depicts a character bearing an uncanny resemblance to the actor, complete with his signature bracelet and ear studs. Khan's legal team has argued that this amounts to a "" to him and that the film spreads a false narrative.
Khan had previously filed a sweeping suit against unknown entities (John Doe) to protect his name, image, and likeness from . In , the High Court had already ordered the takedown of teaser links and other related posts, restraining the makers from disseminating content that violates his or harms his reputation.
Key Developments in Court
During the
hearing,
, appearing for Khan, expressed alarm that the makers had earlier indicated a September release.
"Suppose the movie releases it will cause immense harm to me,"
he submitted, urging the court to act swiftly.
Counsel for defendant Amit Jani, the film's producer, initially told the court he had no instructions on a release date. When pressed by Justice Jyoti Singh, he clarified that the movie was not in a releasable form and had not even been sent to the censor board. The court then recorded the precise statement:
"The impugned movie at this stage is not in a
as its content is yet to be certified by the censor board."
Khan's counsel countered that an OTT release does not require censor board certification, and the court noted this submission. The judge also directed the producer to inform the court of the proposed release date by
, with an oral direction that
"till then you will not release it."
Legal Analysis: and Freedom of Expression
The case underscores the evolving jurisprudence of in India. While the right to control commercial use of one's name, image, and likeness is recognized, it must be balanced against , especially when a film claims to be based on public events. The makers have argued that the film is not a biopic and that Khan cannot invoke to "erase" public events concerning the blackbuck controversy.
Khan, in his rejoinder, clarified that he is not claiming a monopoly over any event or public discourse, but rather objecting to the of his identity and uniquely identifiable characteristics—such as his bracelet and ear studs—to attract viewers. The court's earlier had already restrained the makers from using his name, mannerisms, and distinctive attributes without authorization.
The issue of CBFC certification adds another layer. For theatrical releases, certification is mandatory, but OTT platforms operate under a different regulatory framework. The court's recording of Khan's concern on this point suggests that the makers attempt to circumvent the theatrical route, making the application critical.
Impact on Legal Practice
For legal professionals, this case highlights the practical challenges of protecting in the digital age. The speed and reach of online dissemination, as noted by the court in its order, "" compared to traditional media. The use of to target unknown infringers remains a potent tool, but securing before a film's release requires clear evidence of .
The court's direction to the producer to disclose the release date and its insistence on recording the present status of the film demonstrates a proactive approach to preventing . The next hearing on will likely focus on the of the suit, with the defendant having raised objections under and on .
Conclusion
The 's recording of the film's unreleasable status provides to Salman Khan, but the broader legal battle over versus is far from over. As the matter progresses, the court will have to weigh the actor's right to control his public image against the filmmakers' right to portray in dramatic works. The outcome will have significant implications for the entertainment industry and the protection of in India.
The case is listed for further hearing on , with the defendant's reply due within two weeks.
