11Th January, 2020 + CM (M) 15/2020, CM APPL
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on:10th January, 2020 Date of decision: 11th January, 2020 + CM (M) 15/2020, CM APPL. 936/2020 & CM APPL. 937/2020 FOX STAR STUDIOS (DIVISION OF STAR INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED) ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Rajiv Nayar, Senior Advocate with Ms. Savni Dutt, Mr. Raj Shekhar Rao, Mr. Saurabh Seth, Mr. Nitin Sharma, Mr. Yatinder Garg, Advocates. (M:9999064036) versus APARNA BHAT & ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Sanjay Parikh, Senior Advocate with Mr. P. Ramesh Kumar, Ms. Karishma Maria, Ms. Shivangi Singh, Ms. Sanjana Srikumar and Ms. Tanima Kishore, Advocates for R-1. (M:9650393360) Mr. Sandeep Sethi, Senior Advocate with Mr. Rishi Agarwal, Ms. Madhu Chaudhary, Mr. Harshvardhan Jha, Mr. Vikramaditya Chavan, Ms. Mayuri Shukla and Ms. Niyati Kholi, Advocates for R-2 and 3. (M:9818690207) CORAM: JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUDGMENT Prathiba M. Singh, J. 1. “He threw acid on my face, not on my dreams” – so said the valiant survivor of acid attack - Ms. Laxmi Agarwal. Her arduous and heroic journey since the time she was attacked at the young age of 15 is the subject matter of the cinematograph film ‘CHHAPAAK’. CM (M) 15/2020 Page 1 of 29 2. Director/Producer, Ms. Meghna Gulzar, who is Defendant No.1 in the present suit, has produced and directed cinematograph film ‘CHHAPAAK’, which was released yesterday i.e. on 10th January, 2020 across the country. The film relates to an important social cause i.e., the portrayal of women who are acid attack victims. It has been publicly acknowledged that the film was inspired by a real-life event which occurred in the case of an acid attack victim Ms. Laxmi Aggarwal – her emotional and legal journey. The film seeks to capture, in a fictionalised manner the events that occurred since 2005. The film itself is a fictionalised version of real-life events. 3. The Respondent No.1/Plaintiff – Ms. Aparna Bhat (hereinafter, “Plaintiff”) is a practising lawyer. As per the plaint, she is stated to be practising in the area of women’s rights, children’s rights and rights of other underprivileged sections of society. The case in the plaint is that she was the lawyer representing acid attack survivor Ms. Laxmi Agarwal. The Plaintiff had represented her in the criminal trial, which ensued after the attack, in the High Court and also in a PIL in the Supreme Court. It is her case in the plaint that she was approached by Defendant No. 1 for her assistance in the making of the film. The Plaintiff claims she was involved in the making of the film by giving her inputs, providing documents, explaining the legal nuances in the entire journey, editing the script etc., 4. The Plaintiff avers that Defendant No.1 had consulted her extensively for the purpose of the script and had obtained her inputs when the draft screenplay was sent by Defendant No.1 to her. It is further claimed that she had familiarized Defendant No.1 with the various court processes, and facilitated visits to the Delhi High Court and Supreme Court so as to give her a flavour of the real situation. It is her case that in 2018, when the script CM (M) 15/2020 Page 2 of 29 was being discussed between the Plaintiff and Defendant No.1, it was agreed that the Plaintiff’s role in film would be acknowledged by mentioning the same in the film as under: “Aparna Bhat continues to fight cases of sexual and physical violence against women” 5. Reliance is placed by the Plaintiff on various emails and other communications exchanged between the parties, extracts from the script which contain the handwritten inputs given by her, as also the notices exchanged. 6. It is stated in the plaint that the Plaintiff was extremely surprised when she was invited for a premier of the film on 7th January, 2020 and realised that there was no acknowledgement about her role in the film. Accordingly, the suit for injunction was filed before the Trial Court seeking the following reliefs: “a) A decree of prohibitory/mandatory injunction be passed against the defendants and in favour of the plaintiff, directing the defendants and its officials to restrain the public release of the film on 10.01.2020; b) Cost of the proceedings/ suit be also awarded in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant; c) Grant mandatory injunction for inclusion of the Plaintiff’s name in acknowledgments as promised/accepted by the Defendant in communication dated 17.11.2018 prior to the release of the film on 10.01.2020; d) Such other or further orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case be.” 7. Along with the plaint, an application seeking interim relief was also filed, in which the prayer sought was as under: CM (M) 15/2020 Page 3 of 29 “a) Pending hearing and final disposal of the suit, the Defendants either themselves or through anyone acting on their behalf be restrained from the release of the film “Chhapaak” in any jurisdiction including the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court; b) And pass such other or further orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case be.” 8. The Trial Court, vide order dated 9th January, 2020 granted an interim order with the following observations: “………The facts disclosed that plaintiff has rendered her contribution in the form of consultation, necessary inputs, documents for the making of the aforesaid film to defendant no.1. As per the document relating to “Actual Footage & Images, the contribution of the plaintiff was to be acknowledged through words “Aparna Bhat continues to fight cases of sexual and physical violence against women.” It is a matter of fact that the aforesaid film depicts legal nuances and as such, the contribution of the plaintiff should necessarily be acknowledged in the background of the fact that she provided necessary legal support in the form of consultation, inputs and documents. Further, it is also necessary from the perspective of the viewers as they deserve to know the source of the legal inputs, guidance provided by the plaintiff. Plaintiff is in her legitimate right to compel the defendant to show her contribution during the screening of the film as such right is embedded in the agreement which is evident from the template acknowledging her contribution and communication effected between the parties. If ad interim injunction directing the defendant to show on actual footage and images the line “Aparna Bhat continues to fight cases of sexual and physical violence against women” is not granted, then grave prejudice, injustice would be caused to her as the screening of the film without it would prevent the CM (M) 15/2020 Page 4 of 29 general public from knowing the said contribution of the plaintiff in the film. The Plaintiff has thus prima facie able to show an infraction of her legal right emanating from the agreement and the facts presented. The balance of convenience also lies in her favour as it is the plaintiff who would be subjected to grave hardship, inconvenience, prejudice and injustice by not granting the injunction. Although, the said agreement do not have any financial implication but non-inclusion of the plaintiff’s contribution during the screening of film would cause irreparable damage to her in other terms. Accordingly, this court is of the considered view that facts are indicative that the plea of the plaintiff for ad interim injunction is well founded and it is necessary that her contribution be acknowledged by providing on the slide of actual footage and images, the line “Aparna Bhatt continues to fight cases of sexual and physical violence against women” during the screening of the film. The said line of screen may be with a rider that the same is through court orders." 9. The present petition has been filed challenging the said order dated 9th January, 2020. The petition has been preferred by Fox Star Studios (Division of Star India Private Limited), which is the production house for the film. The Plaintiff is Respondent No.1 in the petition. Ms. Meghna Gulzar – Defendant No.1, and the other co-production companies are proforma Respondent Nos.2-4. 10. On behalf of Fox Star Studios, it is submitted by Mr. Rajiv Nayar, ld. Senior Counsel that the Trial Court has completely erred in granting a mandatory ex-parte ad-interim injunction. It is his submission that such an injunction cannot be granted by the Court, that too, ex-parte as it is the settled position in law that an interim mandatory injunction can be only to CM (M) 15/2020 Page 5 of 29 restore the status quo ante and not to create a fresh state of affairs. He relies upon Dorab Cawasji Warden v Coomi Sorab Warden and Others (1990) 2 SCC 117. 11. It is further submitted by Mr. Nayar that the Trial Court has gone beyond the reliefs which were sought by the Plaintiff herself, as the only order that was sought by the Plaintiff was restraint on the release of the film. An interim mandatory injunction for inclusion of credits was not even sought by the Plaintiff. Mr. Nayar further submits that in fact, the Trial Court has granted the final order sought at the interim stage. Further reliance has been placed on Rule 36, Section IV, Chapter II, Part VI of the Bar Council of India Rules to argue that the nature of credit, as directed by the Trial Court, in fact, constitutes advertising/promoting the lawyer, which is barred under the Rules.