Karnataka High Court Dismisses Plagiarism Plea Against Dhurandhar-2, Says Remedy Lies Before Civil Court

The Karnataka High Court has recently dismissed a writ petition filed by Bengaluru-based filmmaker Santosh Kumar R.S., who had alleged that the Aditya Dhar-directed Hindi film Dhurandhar-2 was a plagiarised version of his original script titled D-Saheb.

Justice K.S. Hemalekha held that the petition was not maintainable, observing that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is discretionary and ordinarily not exercised when an efficacious alternative remedy is available, and directing the petitioner to pursue remedies before a civil court under the Copyright Act of 1957.

Santosh Kumar, a writer, director, and producer, claimed to have authored an original patriotic script centred on anti-terror operations, duly registered with the Screen Writers Association.

He alleged that in 2023, he had shared the script with various production houses through intermediaries, including Dinesh Kumar, a creative producer, and that the respondents, having gained access to his work, had copied it substantially to produce Dhurandhar-2, which was released in multiple languages across the country.

Aggrieved by the alleged unauthorised use and the absence of any credit or compensation, Santosh Kumar filed a writ petition under seeking cancellation of the Central Board of Film Certification's certificate granted to the film and a stay on all its screenings, including theatrical and OTT, across the country.

The writ was filed against director-producer Aditya Dhar, producer Lokesh Dhar of B62 Studios, Jio Studios CEO and film producer Jyothi Deshpande, and the Central Board of Film Certification.

Justice Hemalekha identified three core questions: whether a writ petition alleging copyright infringement was maintainable under Article 226, whether the CBFC's certification powers under Sections 5A and 5B of the Cinematograph Act, 1952 could be invoked to resolve a private copyright dispute, and whether writ jurisdiction was justified in the absence of any challenge to statutory action.

On all three counts, the court answered in the negative.

Relying on the Supreme Court's ruling in R.G. Anand v. Delux Films (1978), the court held that proving copyright infringement requires clear, cogent and convincing evidence establishing access, originality and substantial copying of expression, and that the test is whether a viewer would gain an unmistakable impression that the later work is a copy.

The court said such determination involves disputed questions of fact requiring a full-fledged trial, cross-examination and, in appropriate cases, expert analysis.

The court held that such an exercise falls outside the limited scope of writ jurisdiction, which does not permit detailed evidentiary inquiry and is ordinarily not invoked except in exceptional cases involving pure questions of law or challenges to statutory action.

On the CBFC's role, the court observed that its mandate under Sections 5A and 5B of the Cinematograph Act is confined to examining whether a film complies with statutory standards such as public order, decency, morality and security of the State, and that certification is in the nature of an expert opinion which can be interfered with only in cases of blatant illegality.

It held that the Board is not a forum for adjudicating private proprietary disputes over screenplay ownership.

"The petitioner has failed to show a legal right to have the Board investigate plagiarism under the Cinematograph Act and the remedy lies to the petitioner under the provisions of the Copyright Act and not under the Cinematograph Act. Section 5A of the Cinematograph Act is a safety and morality filter not plagiarism," the court held.

The court further clarified that there is no statutory duty on the CBFC to investigate allegations of script theft before issuing a certificate, and that a certification under Section 5A can be challenged only on limited grounds such as violation of statutory guidelines, procedural irregularity or infringement of fundamental rights.

The court noted that none of these grounds were established in the present case.

The court also examined the precedents cited by the petitioner, including Bobby Art International v. Om Pal Singh Hoon and N.P. Amruthesh v. State of Karnataka, and found them inapplicable. It noted that those rulings arose in the context of film certification and issues such as obscenity and compliance with statutory guidelines, not disputes involving competing claims over authorship or ownership of a screenplay.

With no basis to invoke writ jurisdiction, the petition was dismissed as not maintainable. The court, however, left it open to the petitioner to pursue appropriate remedies before a competent civil court.