Delhi High Court: No Stay on Saurav Ganguly's 'Doosra' Film Release

• The Delhi High Court refused to issue an immediate stay on the release of the film "Doosra."
• Former India cricket captain Saurav Ganguly and Luv Films LLP sought the injunction against the film.
• The plea alleged unauthorized commercial exploitation of Ganguly's personality rights, including his iconic Lord's shirtless celebration.
• Luv Films LLP claimed infringement of their exclusive contractual rights for a proposed biopic on Ganguly.
• Justice Dinesh Bhatt confirmed that the film could proceed with its scheduled theatrical release.

The legal challenge, initiated jointly by Saurav Ganguly and the production house Luv Films LLP, aimed to secure a Doosra film injunction against its release across all platforms.

The Delhi High Court recently declined to issue any immediate order regarding a plea filed by former Indian cricket captain Saurav Ganguly, which sought to halt the release of the film "Doosra." The court's decision, delivered on a Thursday, meant that the movie, scheduled for theatrical release the following day, would proceed as planned without judicial intervention.

Justice Dinesh Bhatt, presiding over the matter, explicitly stated that no stay had been granted. He clarified his position by remarking, "I have said no stay, so the film can go on," indicating that the court had not taken any action to prevent the film's debut. The case was slated for further hearing on the subsequent day, a Friday, but the immediate effect was that the film's release schedule remained unaffected by the legal challenge.

The legal challenge, initiated jointly by Saurav Ganguly and the production house Luv Films LLP, aimed to secure a Doosra film injunction against its release across all platforms. Their petition to the Delhi High Court cited the alleged exploitation of significant life events from Ganguly's career, specifically highlighting his captaincy during the NatWest cricket series final and his memorable shirtless celebration at Lord's.

The core of the complaint revolves around claims of unauthorised commercial exploitation of Saurav Ganguly’s personality rights. Furthermore, the petitioners asserted that the film infringed upon Luv Films LLP’s exclusive contractual rights, which pertain to a proposed biographical film about the cricketer. The suit contended that the film and its promotional materials were using Ganguly’s name, image, likeness, and iconic cricketing moments without proper authorization.

Consequently, Ganguly and Luv Films LLP sought a comprehensive injunction. This injunction was intended to prevent the film's release in theatres, on digital platforms, and through other distribution channels. Additionally, they requested a ban on the circulation of any promotional content that allegedly leveraged Ganguly's persona without the necessary permissions.

Central to the petitioners' argument is an agreement established on August 5, 2021, between Saurav Ganguly and Luv Films LLP. This contract granted the production house exclusive rights to develop, produce, and commercially exploit audiovisual content. Crucially, this scope included a biographical film based on Ganguly's life and illustrious cricketing career.

The existence of this exclusive agreement forms the basis for Luv Films LLP's claim of infringement of their contractual rights. The legal action suggests that the "Doosra" film, by depicting aspects of Ganguly's life and career, directly undermines the exclusivity granted to Luv Films LLP for their own biographical project, thereby complicating the landscape of biographical content creation involving public figures.

This case before the Delhi High Court carries significant implications for public figures, particularly sports personalities, and the production houses involved in creating biographical content. The dispute underscores the growing importance of personality rights in India and the legal protections available against the unauthorised commercial exploitation of an individual's image and life story. The specific mention of the Lord's shirtless celebration rights highlights how even iconic moments can become points of contention in commercial ventures.

The court's initial refusal to grant an immediate injunction, while not a final ruling, offers insight into the judicial approach to such matters, especially when balancing alleged rights infringements against scheduled releases. For legal professionals advising on biographical films, this case emphasizes the critical need for robust contractual agreements and the potential challenges posed by competing productions that may infringe upon established exclusive rights.

Lawyers advising public figures, sports personalities, or production houses on biographical content should closely follow this case. It provides insight into the judicial approach to personality rights, contractual exclusivity, and the granting of interim injunctions against film releases for alleged unauthorized commercial exploitation of a person's image and life events.

Source: Original reporting via legal news reports