Case at a Glance
Former India captain Sourav Ganguly and a production company sued the makers of the film Doosra, alleging that it commercially exploited his name, likeness and iconic moments without consent, while his own authorised biopic is in the works. The film had already been released in theatres on 23 October 2026. Justice Tejas Karia held that Ganguly had made out a prima facie case of infringement of his personality rights, and that licences for archival cricket footage were not his consent. Because the film was already out, the Court did not stop public viewing outright; it ordered a bilingual disclaimer and a ₹2 crore bank guarantee, failing which exhibition and promotion would stand restrained.
Plaintiff No. 1 is Sourav Ganguly, former Indian cricket captain and former BCCI President; Plaintiff No. 2 is a production company. In August 2021 the plaintiffs signed a Life Rights Agreement for an authorised biopic, Dada – The Sourav Ganguly Story, whose first-look poster was released in July 2026 with a proposed release date of 14 May 2027. Defendants 1 to 6 are associated with the film Doosra; Defendant No. 7 is its distributor. Between 2017 and 2019, Defendant No. 1 and her husband had corresponded with Ganguly and his manager about interviews for their project, and a teaser came out in June 2019. The defendants also licensed archival cricket footage from several rights holders, including the BCCI.
The trailer of Doosra was released on 12 October 2026 and the film was certified by the CBFC on 15 October. After a legal notice on 17 October, the plaintiffs filed suit on 21 October 2026, and the film opened in theatres on 23 October. The plaintiffs said the film used Ganguly’s identity, likeness and moments such as the 2002 NatWest final and his shirt-waving celebration to draw audiences. The defendants replied that the film is a docudrama about a fictional woman, Tara, that Ganguly appears only in about four minutes of licensed footage as her inspiration, that the plaintiffs had known of the project since 2017, and that restraining a film would chill free speech. The Court viewed the film and examined the sealed biopic manuscript before ruling.
The Key Question Before the Court
Can a film built around a fictional protagonist, using licensed archival footage of a living sports icon, be restrained at the interim stage for infringing his personality rights, and what relief is appropriate once the film is already in theatres?
Historical Reference or Commercial Appropriation?
Justice Tejas Karia found, prima facie, that Ganguly holds enforceable personality rights and is identifiable in the film; counsel for the makers conceded the existence of the rights, leaving infringement as the real dispute. The Court noted that the film runs two parallel strands, Tara’s fictional story and Ganguly’s career, and that repeated references to him, together with the footage, made his presence more than historical background. Drawing a line between referring to history and using a person’s recognition to attract an audience, the Court said: “Where the latter purpose is apparent, a mere invocation of freedom of expression does not justify the appropriation” of economic value. It added that the parallels were created by the narrative, since “Indian cricket history contains numerous other victories and achievements that could have served as a source of inspiration”. The four-minute figure was not decisive; the manner of use mattered.
On the defences, the Court held that licences from footage owners such as the BCCI “cannot, by themselves, be construed as consent on the part of Plaintiff No. 1” to the commercial exploitation of his persona. The 2017–2019 correspondence did not show that he authorised this use, and the delay plea failed because the 2019 teaser did not reveal the narrative later shown in the trailer. The Court also noted, as a prima facie concern, that the film came after a long hiatus and soon after the biopic’s release date was announced. Cutting scenes was not workable because the use was woven into how the two strands were combined. Among the authorities discussed are D.M. Entertainment (P) Ltd. v. Baby Gift House, (2010) 04 DEL CK 0034, Titan Industries Ltd. v. Ramkumar Jewellers, (2012) 04 DEL CK 0077 and Shivaji Rao Gaikwad v. Varsha Productions, (2015) 02 MAD CK 0169; the makers relied on R. Rajagopal v. State of T.N., (1994) 10 SC CK 0034. As the film was already released, the balance of convenience led the Court to protect the plaintiffs through conditions rather than an immediate ban.
What the Court Actually Held
- Sourav Ganguly holds enforceable personality rights and is identifiable in Doosra; a prima facie case of commercial appropriation of his persona was made out.
- Licences for archival footage from rights holders are not, by themselves, the celebrity’s consent to commercial use of his personality; nor did the 2017–2019 correspondence amount to consent, waiver or acquiescence.
- Within two days, the makers must show an English and Hindi disclaimer at the start and end of the film stating that it does not intend to infringe Ganguly’s personality rights, that use of his name is not his acknowledgment or consent, and that the matter is sub judice; and within two weeks one of Defendants 1–6 must furnish an unconditional bank guarantee of ₹2,00,00,000 in favour of the Registrar General.
- If either condition is not met in time, the defendants stand restrained from exhibiting, streaming, distributing or exploiting the film, and from promotional material (including the 12 October 2026 trailer) that appropriates his name, likeness, persona or distinctive celebration; the findings are prima facie only.
Why This Judgment Matters
- It is a significant interim ruling on how personality rights apply to films and docudramas, not just to merchandise, ads and online misuse.
- It makes clear that buying footage licences from broadcasters or sports bodies does not clear the separate personality rights of the person shown.
- It shows a calibrated remedy for an already-released film: disclaimer plus security, instead of pulling the film from screens.
What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?
For Filmmakers and Creators
- Licensing archival footage is not the same as obtaining a public figure’s consent to build a commercial narrative around him.
- A fictional protagonist does not automatically shield a film whose promotion and structure trade on a real person’s recognition.
- Early correspondence about interviews will not be read as consent unless it covers the use actually made.
For Counsel
- Delay arguments turn on when the infringing narrative became visible; a teaser that did not reveal it may not start the clock.
- Where release has already happened, frame alternative prayers such as disclaimers, deposit of security and accounts, as the Court granted conditional relief here.
- Expect courts to view the work itself; prepare a timestamp table of the uses complained of, as the plaintiffs did.
Key Takeaways
- Personality rights can be enforced against films where a celebrity’s persona is used to draw audiences.
- Footage licences do not equal the personality-rights holder’s consent.
- Doosra may continue only with a disclaimer and a ₹2 crore bank guarantee.
- Non-compliance triggers a restraint on exhibition, streaming and promotion.
Frequently Asked Questions
Has the Delhi High Court banned the film Doosra?
No. The Court declined to restrain public viewing at this stage because the film was already released. It ordered a bilingual disclaimer within two days and a ₹2 crore bank guarantee within two weeks. Only if either condition is not met does a restraint on exhibition, streaming and promotion kick in.
What are personality rights?
They protect a person’s name, image, likeness, voice and other distinctive attributes of identity from unauthorised commercial exploitation. Here the Court held, prima facie, that Sourav Ganguly’s persona, including his well-known celebration, was being used to attract audiences.
Is this a final decision?
No. It decides only the interim injunction application. The Court said its observations are confined to that application and are not an opinion on the merits of the suit, which will go to trial.
Conclusion
The ruling recognises that a film can tell stories inspired by real events, but cannot freely borrow a living icon’s commercial value without his consent. By pairing a disclaimer with security, the Court protected Ganguly’s claim while leaving the released film on screens pending trial.
Practical takeaway: Before building a film or series around a real public figure, secure personality-rights consent from the person, not just footage licences from broadcasters or sporting bodies.
Read the full judgment on CourtKutchehry: View judgment →
For more judgments, legal opinions and case analysis, visit courtkutchehry.com