Delhi High Court Finds Prima Facie Violation Of Sourav Ganguly’s Personality Rights In Doosra, Permits Screening Subject To Disclaimers And ₹2 Crore Bank Guarantee
Delhi High Court Declines Immediate Ban On Doosra Despite Prima Facie Commercial Exploitation Of Sourav Ganguly’s Persona, Orders Disclaimers And ₹2 Crore Unconditional Bank Guarantee
Facts
Former Indian cricket captain Sourav Ganguly and the producer of his authorised biopic, Dada-The Sourav Ganguly Story, sued the makers of Doosra, alleging unauthorised commercial use of his persona. The biopic rights agreement dated 5 August 2021 preceded Doosra’s October 2026 release. Doosra interweaves a fictional woman’s struggle for identity with archival cricket footage and Ganguly’s 2002 NatWest Final triumph. Although discussions about the project dated to 2017-19, Ganguly issued a legal notice after the trailer appeared on 12 October 2026. The film was theatrically released on 23 October. The High Court viewed the complete film, teaser, trailer and a table of disputed scenes before deciding the interim application.
Issues
Whether recurring references to Ganguly’s name, image, sporting achievements and distinctive celebration, including within a fictional narrative and promotional campaign, prima facie infringe his publicity and personality rights; whether footage licences or earlier correspondence establish consent; and whether an interim restraint, scene deletions or protective conditions are justified once the film has already been released.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The plaintiffs argued that the film and promotional material traded on Ganguly’s goodwill and the iconic Lord’s shirt-waving celebration without authorisation, jeopardising both his control over his identity and the exclusive value of the authorised biopic. They maintained that copyright licences for match footage do not transfer an identifiable individual’s personality rights. Preliminary interview discussions never amounted to consent. The trailer, unlike the earlier teaser, revealed the specific promotional exploitation, defeating any allegation of delay. They sought an injunction, or alternatively security and financial disclosures; the biopic agreement reportedly involved ₹25 crore in fixed consideration.
Respondent’s Arguments
The filmmakers characterised Doosra as a docudrama about the fictional Tara, using India’s cricket history only as a parallel source of inspiration. Ganguly’s archival footage occupied about four minutes and had been licensed from relevant copyright holders, including the BCCI. They asserted that Ganguly knew of the film from 2017, and that the claim, brought immediately before release, was delayed. They invoked free expression, public-record exceptions and the absence of an implied endorsement, contending that damages rather than disruption of theatrical and OTT distribution would be appropriate. The distributor denied responsibility for the film’s content.
Analysis of the Law
An application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC requires assessment of a prima facie right and the balance of convenience. The Court distinguished legitimate depiction of historical events from commercially leveraging a celebrity’s identifiable persona to draw audiences. Speech and artistic expression remain relevant but do not automatically excuse appropriation of publicity value. Consent to use copyrighted footage is separate from consent to exploit personality rights; awareness of an evolving project is not blanket authorisation. Screen time alone is not decisive: narrative function, promotional prominence and commercial purpose matter. The findings were expressly preliminary, without finally adjudicating the suit.
Precedent Analysis
Titan Industries Ltd. v. Ramkumar Jewellers, 2012 SCC OnLine Del 2382, supplied the validity-and-identifiability approach to publicity rights. D.M. Entertainment (P) Ltd. v. Baby Gift House, 2010 SCC OnLine Del 4790, addressed unauthorised monetisation of celebrity identity; Jaikishan Kakubhai Saraf v. Peppy Store, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 3664, affirmed protection of distinctive personality attributes. Chitra Jagjit Singh v. Panache Media, 2016 SCC OnLine Bom 2364, discussed the individual’s proprietary commercial interest in reputation. The defendants invoked R. Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu, (1994) 6 SCC 632, on public records, but the Court distinguished the commercial-purpose complaint.
Court’s Reasoning
Justice Tejas Karia found that Ganguly’s career was not merely incidental: repeated dialogue, archival scenes and the trailer integrated his cricketing persona into Tara’s fictional story to attract commercial interest. The footage licences expressly did not resolve third-party personal rights; pre-release communications established neither consent nor acquiescence. The trailer exposed a materially different portrayal from the 2019 teaser. A prima facie violation was thus shown, yet removing selected scenes would require impermissible judicial restructuring of the film’s artistic expression. Since Doosra was already in theatres, the balance of convenience favoured conditional continuation rather than an immediate blanket ban.
Conclusion
The interim application was disposed of without an immediate exhibition ban, subject to two safeguards: appropriately worded English and Hindi disclaimers at the beginning (five seconds each) and end (two seconds each) within two days, and an unconditional ₹2 crore bank guarantee in favour of the Registrar General within two weeks. Noncompliance with either requirement triggers a restraint on further film exploitation and relevant promotional material across media, including OTT. The Court did not finally determine infringement or damages; all findings remain confined to interim relief in the pending commercial suit.
Case: Sourav Ganguly & Anr. v. Masha Sajdeh & Ors.
Court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi
Case Number: CS(COMM) 1156/2026; I.A. 29441/2026; 2026:DHC:9989
Judge: Justice Tejas Karia
Date: 6 November 2026 (reserved 2 November 2026)
Result: Conditional continuation of Doosra; disclaimers and ₹2 crore bank guarantee ordered; noncompliance triggers injunction.
