The Delhi High Court on Thursday directed former Indian cricket captain Sourav Ganguly to identify the allegedly objectionable scenes in the film Doosra, along with timestamps and reasons for objecting to each scene, before deciding whether to grant interim relief in his personality rights dispute with the filmmakers.

Justice Tejas Karia asked Ganguly's side to submit a table specifying the starting and ending timestamps of the disputed portions, with a narration explaining the objections. The Court will examine the film over the weekend and hear the matter again on Monday.

“We can't just say the entire movie has to be blocked. That's not possible at this stage. I have not heard both sides on merits,” the Court observed.

The dispute concerns Doosra, whose makers maintain that it is not a biopic of Ganguly but tells the story of a young girl from Rajasthan who draws inspiration from the cricketer.

During Thursday's hearing, counsel for Ganguly and filmmaker Luv Films argued that the film exploited the cricketer's life story, personality, and professional achievements without his consent.

The counsel relied on an agreement under which Ganguly had granted Luv Films rights to develop and exploit a feature film based on his life, including rights relating to his name, likeness, voice, personality and life events.

It was submitted that the filmmakers had earlier held discussions with Ganguly but failed to finalise an agreement. Ganguly subsequently entered into the agreement with Luv Films, which was developing its own biopic of the cricketer.

His counsel also argued that Doosra drew extensively from Ganguly's life, particularly his association with the historic NatWest series, and objected to the manner in which he had been portrayed.

The filmmakers denied that the film was a biopic or that it commercially exploited Ganguly's personality. Their counsel submitted that the story centred on a young woman navigating a patriarchal society, with Ganguly appearing only as a source of inspiration.

They also stated that they had obtained the requisite permissions from the Board of Control for Cricket in India, the England and Wales Cricket Board, and the producer of a documentary relating to Ganguly for the footage and material used in the film.

The Court observed that it would have to examine the competing claims before deciding what relief, if any, was warranted.

“This is a movie versus movie. And rights versus rights. We will have to see whose rights are more infringed and we can pass appropriate directions,” Justice Karia said.

The Court also suggested that the parties explore alternatives to blocking the entire film, including a licensing arrangement, deletion or muting of specific scenes or dialogues, or a disclaimer at the beginning of the film.

“There could be possibility that either we find a middle path where they pay you certain aspect of… where they take license from you. That's number one,” the Bench said.

“Number two is you ask them to delete or mute certain scenes or dialogues. Third is they can put a disclaimer at the beginning of the movie. Those are the options we can explore.”

The court clarified that it was not expressing a final view on the merits of the dispute. It also asked Ganguly's side to identify the specific portions it found objectionable rather than relying only on a broad claim that the entire film infringed his rights.

“If you say the entire movie is not objectionable, say 30% or 20% is objectionable, then we will hear them on that aspect,” the Court said, while asking counsel to specify the disputed portions. It added that the plaintiffs' contention that the entire film was objectionable could also be considered.

The filmmakers agreed to provide a pen drive containing the film for the Court's examination.

The plaintiffs were also asked to file a rejoinder addressing the factual assertions in the filmmakers' reply. The filmmakers' counsel indicated that a script of their proposed film on Ganguly could be submitted in a sealed envelope.

The matter will be heard again on Monday.

Tags:    
Case Title :  SOURAV GANGULY & ANR. V/S MASHA SAJDEH & ORS.