This is an interim order on an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC. The Court expressly clarifies that its observations are confined to the application and are not an expression of opinion on the merits of the suit. The film has already been released theatrically, and the order does not restrain its exhibition unless the defendants fail to comply with the two conditions imposed.
- Case
- Sourav Ganguly & Anr v. Masha Sajdeh & Ors.
- Court
- High Court of Delhi
- Decision
- Citation
- 2026:DHC:9989
- Bench
- Tejas Karia
- Judgment by
- Tejas Karia
- Case numbers
- CS(COMM) 1156/2026
- Outcome
- Application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 disposed of: no interim restraint on exhibiting the film, subject to (i) a bilingual disclaimer within two days and (ii) an unconditional bank guarantee of Rs 2 crore in favour of the Registrar General within two weeks; non-compliance with either condition triggers a full restraint on exhibition and promotion.
The decision
The Delhi High Court has held that the plaintiffs have made out a prima facie case that the film ‘Doosra’ commercially exploits Sourav Ganguly’s personality, publicity, identity, persona, reputation and goodwill without authorisation, and for an interim injunction.
But the Court did not restrain the film’s exhibition. Since ‘Doosra’ has already been released theatrically, the balance of convenience favours not restraining viewing by the public at this interim stage, subject to two conditions: the defendants must display a prominently worded disclaimer in English and Hindi, and they must furnish an unconditional bank guarantee of Rs 2 crore in favour of the Registrar General within two weeks. If either condition is not complied with, the defendants stand restrained from exhibiting, streaming, selling or otherwise exploiting the film, and from disseminating promotional material that commercially appropriates Ganguly’s name, image, likeness, identity, persona, distinctive celebration, reputation or goodwill.
Background
Plaintiff No. 1 is a former captain of the Indian national cricket team and a former president of the Board of Control for Cricket in India. The suit protects Ganguly’s personality, publicity, identity, persona, reputation and goodwill rights against their alleged unauthorised commercial appropriation in ‘Doosra’, as well as the contractual rights acquired by plaintiff No. 2, a film production company, for the biopic ‘Dada — The Sourav Ganguly Story’. Defendant Nos. 1 to 4 and 6 are associated with the production of ‘Doosra’, defendant No. 5 is its director, and defendant No. 7 is its distributor.
The correspondence goes back to 2017, when defendant No. 1’s husband met Ganguly to discuss the film, and continued through 2018 and 2019. A promotional video, the teaser, was released in June 2019. On 5 August 2021 Ganguly and plaintiff No. 2 entered into a Life Rights Agreement for the biopic, under which plaintiff No. 2 agreed to pay Rs 25 crore as fixed consideration, with further sums towards branding revenues and box-office shares. The biopic was announced on 9 September 2021, its first-look poster was released on 8 July 2026, and its proposed release date is 14 May 2027.
The issue
The application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 sought an ad-interim injunction restraining defendant Nos. 1 to 6 from exhibiting, screening, broadcasting or streaming ‘Doosra’ by any means, pending final disposal of the suit.
In the alternative, the plaintiffs asked that the defendants deposit security towards the damages claimed, and furnish accounts of all revenues from the film, preserve financial records and distribution agreements, and disclose the consideration received or receivable from its exploitation.
The rule
The law recognises the commercial value of an individual’s identity, name, image, likeness, voice and other distinctive attributes, and the right of publicity protects against unauthorised commercial exploitation of them, subject to freedom of speech and expression. The plaintiffs relied on, among others, Titan Industries Ltd. v. Ramkumar Jewellers, Super Cassettes Industries v. Nandi Chinni Kumar, and ICC Development (International) Ltd. v. Arvee Enterprises.
An interim injunction turns on a prima facie case, the balance of convenience and irreparable injury. A further question was whether licences for the use of archival footage could amount to consent to exploit Ganguly’s identity: the Court distinguished permission to incorporate footage from authorisation to commercially exploit his identity, noting that the licences clearly exclude the use of any personal rights.
The reasoning
The Court held that Ganguly’s identity and achievements are not used merely as an incidental historical reference. The film draws on his selection as captain when allegations of betting in Indian cricket had surfaced, his leadership of the team to victory in the NatWest Series Final, and his shirt-waving celebration, employing them to create audience recognition, emotional association, publicity and commercial interest. A fictional protagonist cannot by itself immunise the defendants if the overall presentation and promotion amount to unauthorised commercial appropriation of an identifiable personality.
The defendants’ reliance on the 2017–2019 correspondence was misconceived. Preliminary discussions, proposals, requests for interviews and the sharing of archival material cannot be equated with consent, authorisation, waiver or acquiescence in the film or its promotion. An email of 6 June 2018 from Ganguly’s manager had itself recorded concern about a possible overlap between a documentary and the biopic then under contemplation, and the defendants could not convert preliminary discussions predating the Life Rights Agreement into perpetual consent.
The plea of delay also failed. The Court’s comparison of the teaser and the trailer revealed a marked distinction: the teaser presented the film as a story about Indian cricket, seen through the eyes of a young girl, while the trailer portrays Ganguly as its principal character. The plaintiffs acted promptly after the trailer was released on 12 October 2026, so the teaser did not furnish a cause of action in 2019. The defendants took no steps to release the film for seven years after the teaser, but expedited its release only after the biopic’s release date was announced, raising a prima facie impression of an intention to exploit Ganguly’s identity ahead of the biopic.
The Court then considered whether directing the defendants to remove the objectionable portions in the plaintiffs’ table would be a workable alternative to restraining exhibition. It held that it would not: the film interweaves a fictional narrative with a documentary account of real-life events concerning Ganguly, and his personality is embedded in how the two narratives are combined, rather than confined to portions capable of removal in isolation.
The outcome
Because the film has already been released theatrically, the Court imposed two conditions instead of an immediate restraint. First, within two days, the defendants must display a prominently worded disclaimer in English and Hindi, for five seconds each at the beginning of the film after the existing disclaimer, and for two seconds each at the end before the credits, stating that the film is not intended to violate or infringe Ganguly’s personality rights and that the use of his name is not his acknowledgment of, or consent to, such use, which remains sub judice.
Second, within two weeks of the judgment, any of defendant Nos. 1 to 6 must furnish an unconditional bank guarantee of Rs 2 crore in favour of the Registrar General of the Court, as security to protect the plaintiffs’ rights during the pendency of the suit. If either direction is not complied with within its stipulated period, the defendants, jointly and severally, together with their agents, representatives, producers, distributors, exhibitors, licensees and successors, stand restrained from exhibiting, screening, distributing, transmitting, broadcasting, streaming or otherwise exploiting the film in India or outside India, and from creating or disseminating any trailer, teaser, poster, clip, reel or other promotional material relating to it, including the trailer released on 12 October 2026. The application stands disposed of in these terms.
BANTHRY ANALYSISFor law students
This judgment shows interim relief adapting to the facts. The Court found a prima facie case, yet refused to stop the public from watching a film already in theatres, protecting the plaintiffs instead with a disclaimer and a Rs 2 crore bank guarantee, with a full restraint held in reserve. Notice also how the Court treated delay: the cause of action arose not in 2017, or when the teaser appeared in 2019, but when the trailer in October 2026 first showed Ganguly as the film’s principal character.
READING PROMPTSQuestions for a closer reading
- Why did the Court hold that the plaintiffs had made out a prima facie case even though the film’s protagonist is fictional?
- Why did the plea of delay fail, and what role did the Court’s comparison of the teaser and the trailer play in that finding?
- Why did the Court refuse an injunction against exhibition but impose a disclaimer and a bank guarantee, and what happens if the defendants do not comply?
