Karnataka High Court Clears Release Of 'BOSS' Movie, Rejects Darshan's Plea Over Renukaswamy Murder Case Similarities

The Karnataka High Court has recently dismissed an appeal filed by actor Darshan Srinivas (Darshan Thoogudeepa) and his wife Vijayalakshmi challenging the refusal to temporarily restrain the release of the Kannada film BOSS.

The court held that the existence of certain similarities between the film and the pending trial relating to the alleged murder of Renukaswamy, in which the actor is facing trial as an accused, was by itself not sufficient to justify an interim injunction.

Justice Pradeep Singh Yerur upheld the Bengaluru sessions court's order refusing interim relief, observing that the film was "not absolutely what plaintiff No.1 is implicated in the criminal trial."

"When such being the case, it cannot be said that there is any infringement of the constitutional right of privacy of the plaintiffs being infringed.", the court ruled.

Darshan and his wife had filed a civil suit seeking to restrain the producer and director of BOSS from releasing the film, contending that it was a dramatized re-enactment of the prosecution's case in the pending murder trial.

The sessions court initially granted an ex parte injunction but later vacated it after hearing the filmmakers, leading to the present appeal.

Before the High Court, the actor argued that "Boss" and "D Boss" had become his distinctive commercial identity through years of use in the Kannada film industry and among his fan base.

He contended that the filmmakers had appropriated that identity by using the title BOSS and incorporating thirteen alleged similarities with the pending criminal case, amounting to an unauthorised use of his personality rights.

The producer and director opposed the appeal, submitting that the film's protagonist is a cricketer, not a film actor, and that the movie carries an opening disclaimer stating that "All characters, names, places and events depicted in this film are purely fictions" and has "absolutely no resemblance" to any real person. They also argued that the film had been certified by the Central Board of Film Certification.

After considering the rival submissions, the court observed that while certain similarities existed, they were largely drawn from material already in the public domain because of extensive media coverage of the case. It rejected the contention that the film's release would prejudice the pending criminal trial.

"It cannot be said that the Courts dealing with such criminal trial would be influenced or swayed away by such depiction of art or similarities in the movie to decide the merits of the criminal trial.", the court observed. 

The court also noted that restraining the release of a film involves serious financial consequences for its makers. It noted how it cannot interfere with an order refusing temporary injunction only where the exercise of discretion is shown to be arbitrary or perverse.

Finding no such infirmity in the sessions court's order, the court held, "The reasons assigned and the conclusion arrived at by the trial Court are just and proper and the appellants have not made out any good ground to interfere with the well-reasoned order passed by the trial Court."

The appeal was accordingly dismissed. The court clarified that its observations were confined to the application for temporary injunction and would not influence the adjudication of the pending civil suit.