The Delhi High Court has prima facie found that the makers of the film Doosra commercially exploited former Indian cricket captain Sourav Ganguly’s personality rights without authorisation. Justice Tejas Karia directed the filmmakers to display disclaimers in Hindi and English and furnish an unconditional bank guarantee of ₹2 crore. The Court, however, declined to stop the film’s theatrical screening.
Background
Ganguly and filmmaker Luv Films LLP approached the High Court alleging unauthorised commercial use of his name, identity and iconic cricketing moments in Doosra. The objections particularly concerned references to India's 2002 NatWest Series final against England at Lord's and Ganguly's famous shirtless celebration on the balcony.
Ganguly had entered into an agreement with Luv Films on August 5, 2021, granting it exclusive rights to develop and commercially produce audiovisual content based on his life and cricketing career. The production house is developing an authorised biopic titled Dada – The Sourav Ganguly Story.
After examining the film and the parties' submissions, Justice Tejas Karia observed that Ganguly's identity was not merely being used to depict historical sporting events but had also become part of the film's fictional narrative and promotional campaign.
The Court observed:
“In the prima facie view of this Court, the defendants have commercially exploited the personality rights of Plaintiff No. 1 by unauthorised use of Plaintiff No. 1's identity and persona.”
It further noted that deleting the disputed scenes was not a workable solution because those portions were closely connected with the film's overall narrative.
The Court also declined to restrain theatrical exhibition, noting that the film had already been released and that the balance of convenience did not favour stopping its screening.
The Court directed the filmmakers to display a prominent disclaimer in Hindi and English for five seconds at the beginning and two seconds at the end of the film. It must clarify that Ganguly's use of identity does not imply his consent or acknowledgement.
The producers must also furnish an unconditional bank guarantee of ₹2 crore within two weeks.
Failure to comply with these conditions would trigger an injunction restraining commercial exhibition, distribution, streaming and other exploitation of the film during the pendency of the suit.
The Court clarified that its observations were limited to the interim application and would not determine the final merits of the case.
