Disclaimer: This has been reported after the availability of the order of the Court and not on media reports so as to give an accurate report to our readers.
Karnataka High Court: In a writ petition filed by petitioner-Santosh Kumar R.S., writer, director and producer, seeking direction to Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) to cancel the certificate granted to Aditya Dhar, film director and producer, Lokesh Dhar, film producer, and Jyothi Deshpande, film producer for the screening of their film “Dhurandhar 2” across platforms, alleging that the said movie was a plagiarised version of the petitioner’s original script, a Single Judge Bench of K.S. Hemalekha, J., held that merely because a film was certified under Section 5-A, Cinematograph Act, 1952 (Cinematograph Act), the same could not be interfered with under Article 226 of the Constitution, on the ground of alleged plagiarism, particularly when such allegations pertains to private proprietary rights disputes, which require trial.
Accordingly, the Court dismissed the said petition.
Also read: Karnataka HC Sends Ranveer Singh to Temple Over Kantara Mimicry Row
Background
In the present case, the petitioner claimed to be a film writer, director and producer, who had authored an original script titled “D Saheb” based on a patriotic theme involving anti-terror operations. He contended that he developed the story, screenplay, character sketches and had registered the same with Screen Writers Association and other authorities.
He maintained that during 2023 he had shared the said script with various production houses and industry personnel, including Jyothi Deshpande, through intermediaries. He asserted that the respondents unlawfully copied the same and produced the movie “Dhurandhar 2” which subsequently released in multiple languages across the country.
Aggrieved by the alleged plagiarism, the petitioner approached the High Court.
Issues and Analysis
Whether invocation of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution was maintainable for the petitioner’s copyright claim concerning “Dhurandhar 2”?
The Court stated that the petitioner’s principal grievance was that his story/script was copied by the respondents in producing the film “Dhurandhar 2” and the said dispute pertained to copyright infringement and alleged plagiarism, which necessarily required a detailed examination of evidence, including comparison of scripts, proof of authorship, access and substantial similarity.
The Court emphasised that the scope of interference under Article 226 of the Constitution is limited, and the writ court does not sit as a fact-finding in matters involving such disputed questions of fact of such nature.
The Court stated that R.G. Anand v. Delux Films, (1978) 4 SCC 118, authoritatively laid down that a copyright infringement cannot succeed on mere allegation or superficial similarity, it must be established by clear, cogent and convincing evidence demonstrating that the other side has in fact copied a substantial and material part of the expression of the work. The Court stressed that “the burden lies on the person seeking infringement to prove not only that the other side had access to the original work, but also there exists such degree of similarity which led a prudent and reasonable viewer to make an unmistakable impression that the impugned work is a copy of the original”. Further, the Court stated that such adjudication requires appreciation of evidence and in appropriate cases, even expert analysis. Thus, the Court stated that it is well settled where the dispute pertains to alleged infringement of copyright, the appropriate remedy is to institute a suit for injunction and damages under the Copyright Act, 1957 where parties can lead oral and documentary evidence.
The Court stated that a writ petition would be maintainable except in exceptional cases where issue is purely one of law or involves a challenge to statutory action without disputed facts. Thus, the Court held that in the absence of such exceptional grounds, the writ court cannot entertain writ petition under Article 226.
Whether Sections 5-A and 5-B, Cinematograph Act, 1952 could be invoked to adjudicate private disputes relating to copyright infringement in respect of “Dhurandhar2”?
Since the petitioner sought invoking of Section 5-A, Cinematograph Act, the Court considered Sections 3, 5, 5-A and 5-B of the same and held that the certification granted by CBFC is regarded as an expert opinion, unless there is a blatant illegality. Thus, the certification process was confined to examine whether the film conformed to the statutory guidelines relating to public order, decency, morality, and other specified considerations.
The Court held that the petitioner’s claim that “Dhurandhar 2” was a plagiarised version of an original script was a matter of copyright law which constituted a private proprietary rights dispute between the creator and the filmmakers. The Court further stated that the petitioner had to prove that he was the rightful owner of the original script, that the filmmakers had access to his script, and the movie was substantially similar to the said script. Further, the Court emphasised that the same was required to be proved by a full-fledged trial, to be handled through a civil suit.
Whether the certificate granted by CBFC under Cinematograph Act, 1952 was liable to be interfered with on the ground of alleged plagiarism in “Dhurandhar 2”?
The Court stated that CBFC’s primary mandate under the Cinematograph Act was to classify content based on statutory guidelines and that it is not a specialised forum for adjudicating private proprietary rights disputes or title over the script.
The Court stated that the petitioner’s challenge to the certificate was based solely on a private copyright dispute and was not maintainable unless he was able to demonstrate a manifest illegality in CBFC’s certification process. Further, the Court stated that in the case at hand, the petitioner failed to establish any violation of the statutory guidelines warranting for this Court to interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution and merely because a film was certified under Section 5-A, Cinematograph Act, the same could not be interfered with, on the ground of alleged plagiarism, particularly when such allegations pertains to private proprietary rights disputes, which require trial.
Thus, the Court held that the challenge to CBFC certification lacked a statutory basis, as the CBFC was not an arbitrator of private proprietary rights. Regarding the claim of plagiarism, the Court viewed that the petitioner was at liberty to approach the civil court for copyright infringement stating that the writ petition was not maintainable.
The Court stated that Section 5-A, Cinematograph Act, does not grant CBFC any judicial or quasi-judicial power to adjudicate the title or ownership of the screenplay and the certification process is a regulatory function to ensure the film’s adherence to the public order, decency, and morality. Further, the Court clarified that unless the film’s content itself violated Section 5-B, Cinematograph Act, Section 5-A certificate could not be revoked merely because of a plagiarism dispute.
The Court further stated that the petitioner failed to show a legal right to have CBFC investigate plagiarism under the Cinematograph Act and that remedy to him was available under Copyright Act and not Cinematograph Act.
Decision
The Court stated that Section 5-A, Cinematograph Act was a safety and morality filter not plagiarism, thus, held that the petition at hand was not maintainable. Accordingly, the Court dismissed the same.
Also read: Madras High Court rejects plea to stop Parasakthi movie release amid claims of copied script
[Santosh Kumar R.S. v. Aditya Dhar, Writ Petition No.10911 of 2026 (C), decided on 22-4-2026]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Rajesh K.S., Advocate
For the Respondents: None/Not represented
