The Delhi High Court has recognised a prima facie case of unauthorised commercial appropriation of Sourav Ganguly's personality rights in the docudrama 'Doosra', holding that archival footage licences do not extend to personality rights and prior exploratory discussions do not constitute consent. The Court declined to restrain theatrical exhibition but imposed stringent conditions including a prominent disclaimer and a Rs 2 crore bank guarantee to protect the plaintiffs' rights pending trial.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The plaintiffs, former Indian cricket captain Sourav Ganguly (Plaintiff No. 1) and a film production company (Plaintiff No. 2), instituted a suit seeking to restrain the defendants from exhibiting the cinematograph film 'Doosra' ('Impugned Film') on grounds of unauthorised commercial exploitation of Ganguly's personality, publicity, identity, persona, reputation and goodwill rights. Plaintiff No. 2 had acquired exclusive life rights from Ganguly vide a Life Rights Agreement dated 05.08.2021 for production of a biopic titled 'Dada - The Sourav Ganguly Story' ('Biopic').
Key Facts
- June 2017: Defendant No. 1's husband met Ganguly to discuss the Impugned Film
- 04.05.2018: Defendant No. 1 emailed Ganguly's manager seeking interview availability
- 06.06.2018: Ganguly's manager responded expressing concern about overlap between a documentary and the contemplated Biopic
- 16.06.2018: Defendant No. 1 stated the Impugned Film was 'very different from a biopic' based on Ganguly's autobiography
- June 2019: Promotional video ('Teaser') of Impugned Film released ahead of India vs England World Cup match
- 05.08.2021: Life Rights Agreement executed between Ganguly and Plaintiff No. 2 for Biopic; consideration of Rs 25 crores fixed plus revenue shares
- 09.09.2021: Ganguly announced Biopic production on Twitter
- 08.07.2026: First-look poster of Biopic released with proposed release date 14.05.2027
- 12.10.2026: Official trailer of Impugned Film ('Trailer') released by Defendants 1-6
- 15.10.2026: Impugned Film certified by CBFC for public exhibition
- 17.10.2026: Legal notice issued to Defendants 1-6 to cease and desist
- 21.10.2026: Present suit instituted
- 23.10.2026: Impugned Film released theatrically
- 29.10.2026: Court directed defendants to furnish pen drive containing Impugned Film; plaintiffs to file objectionable timestamps and Biopic manuscript
- 02.11.2026: Hearing concluded, judgment reserved
- 06.11.2026: Judgment delivered
Procedural History
- 21.10.2026: Suit filed (CS(COMM) 1156/2026) with application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC for ad-interim injunction
- 23.10.2026: Court issued notice, directed defendants to arrange screening of Impugned Film
- 29.10.2026: Reply taken on record; defendants directed to furnish pen drive; plaintiffs to file rejoinder and timestamps
- 02.11.2026: Court viewed Impugned Film, Teaser, Trailer; heard arguments; reserved judgment
- 04.11.2026: Parties filed notes of submissions
- 06.11.2026: Judgment delivered
Relief Sought
The plaintiffs sought an ad-interim injunction restraining Defendants 1-6 from exhibiting, screening, communicating to the public, broadcasting or streaming the Impugned Film through any means pending final disposal. Alternatively, they prayed for direction to deposit security towards damages claimed. They also sought direction for furnishing complete accounts of revenues, preservation of financial records, and disclosure of consideration from OTT, satellite, theatrical and other exploitation modes.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the use of Sourav Ganguly's identity, persona, likeness, reputation and achievements in the Impugned Film and its promotional material amounts to infringement of his personality and publicity rights warranting interim injunction, particularly where: (i) archival footage licences were obtained from copyright owners but not from Ganguly for personality rights; (ii) prior communications existed regarding a proposed documentary; and (iii) the film structures a fictional narrative around a character 'Tara' juxtaposed with Ganguly's real cricketing journey.
Arguments Presented
For the Plaintiffs
Mr. J. Sai Deepak, Senior Advocate, submitted that Defendants 1-6 consciously employed Ganguly's identifiable persona, celebrated achievements and iconic moments (particularly the 2002 NatWest Final shirt-waving celebration) as significant commercial attractions without consent. The Life Rights Agreement evidenced substantial commercial value (Rs 25 crores fixed plus revenue shares). Archival footage licences are distinct from personality rights clearances and expressly restrict permitted purposes while placing obligation on licensees to obtain third-party permissions. The Trailer prominently featured Ganguly (25-27 seconds in a 2:12 minute trailer). The director acknowledged the original proposal was a documentary on Ganguly. The Teaser presented the film as about Indian cricket; the Trailer specifically identified Ganguly as principal character. Plaintiffs acted promptly after Trailer release. Defendants expedited release only after Biopic announcement, demonstrating mala fides. Preliminary discussions cannot be converted into perpetual consent. Reliance was placed on Titan Industries Ltd. v. Ramkumar Jewellers, D.M. Entertainment (P) Ltd. v. Baby Gift House, Shivaji Rao Gaikwad v. Varsha Productions, Jaikishan Kakubhai Saraf v. Peppy Store, Yuvraj Singh v. Ashok Kumar and ICC Development (International) Ltd. v. Arvee Enterprises.
For the Respondents
Mr. Sourav Kirpal, Senior Advocate for Defendants 1-6, contended plaintiffs approached court with unexplained delay of nearly 9 years, disentitling them to interim relief (relying on John Hart Jr. v. Mukul Deora). Ganguly was aware of the film since 2017. The Impugned Film is a docudrama centred on fictional protagonist Tara's journey of self-discovery, women empowerment, and breaking patriarchal shackles, with cricket as contextual backdrop. Ganguly appears only through licensed archival footage (4 minutes) as a source of inspiration for Tara. No personal life aspects are covered. The disclaimer clarifies no endorsement. Personality rights require endorsement/association element (DM Entertainment). Archival footage use is licensed under Copyright Act framework; 'personalization of archival footage' is not a personality rights subset. Krishna Kishore Singh v. Sarla A. Saraogi holds no personality rights in public record/historical events. R. Rajagopal v. State of T.N. permits comment on matters of public record. Granting relief would chill free speech and fictionalization of history. Balance of convenience favours defendants as film is released and OTT agreements signed; damages suffice. Defendant No. 7 submitted it is merely a distributor with no role in production/content and should not be directed to deposit security.
The Court's Analysis
The Court recognised that personality rights entail the right to control and protect exploitation of one's image, name, likeness and other identifiable attributes, including commercial gains (Zacchini v. Scripps-Howard Broadcasting Company). Following Jaikishan Kakubhai Saraf v. Peppy Store, these attributes constitute 'personality rights' over which a celebrity exercises exclusive control. Chitra Jagjit Singh v. Panache Media affirmed the right of publicity as a valuable proprietary right evolving from privacy. D.M. Entertainment established that unauthorised appropriation of persona for commercial gain is impermissible. Shivaji Rao Gaikwad held that unauthorised use of a famous person's name to lure users confers no legitimate interest.
The Court identified the two essential elements for publicity rights infringement per Titan Industries: validity (plaintiff owns enforceable right in identity/persona) and identifiability (celebrity identifiable from defendant's unauthorised use). Both were prima facie satisfied: Ganguly is a celebrated cricketer with considerable goodwill; he is identifiable from archival footage in the film. Defendants candidly acknowledged existence of personality rights; the controversy was confined to infringement.
Viewing the Impugned Film, Teaser and Trailer, the Court found two parallel narratives: Tara's fictional personal journey and Ganguly's actual cricketing journey. The conversations between Tara and family frequently refer to Ganguly's performance, attitude and achievements. The footage and recurring references demonstrate his presence is not confined to historical depiction but serves as a recurring reference point advancing Tara's story. The Court distinguished between use of a public figure as historical reference and use of recognition/commercial appeal to attract audiences. The parallel drawn between Tara's awakening and Ganguly's cricketing journey/shirtless celebration does not arise naturally; Indian cricket history contains numerous other victories that could serve as inspiration without specifically identifying Ganguly. The association is created by narrative, not inherent.
The Court held that duration of archival footage (4 minutes) is not determinative; the narrative function and commercial significance must be considered. The repeated references in the fictional script and promotional emphasis cumulatively indicate commercial exploitation of Ganguly's identity. The licences obtained concern copyright in footage and clearly exclude personal rights; they cannot be construed as consent for personality rights exploitation.
Regarding prior communications (2017-2019), the Court found no consent for the specific manner of use in the completed film. The 06.06.2018 email from Ganguly's manager expressly recorded concern about overlap with the Biopic. The Teaser conveyed a film about Indian cricket through a young girl's eyes; the Trailer and film presented a materially different narrative focused on Ganguly as central character. Awareness of the Teaser cannot equate to knowledge of the specific narrative in the Trailer/film. The plea of delay and laches was rejected. R. Rajagopal concerns privacy, not publicity rights; the grievance is commercial exploitation of identity for generating interest.
The Court noted Ganguly informed Defendant No. 1 of the Biopic in 2018; despite this, Defendants released the Impugned Film after a seven-year hiatus immediately following Biopic announcement, raising prima facie impression of commercial exploitation ahead of Biopic release.
On balance of convenience, since theatrical release had occurred, the Court declined to restrain public viewing but imposed conditions: (i) prominent disclaimer at beginning (5 seconds each in English/Hindi) and end (2 seconds each before credits) stating the film does not intend to violate Ganguly's personality rights and use of his name is not acknowledgment/consent, sub judice; (ii) unconditional bank guarantee of Rs 2,00,00,000 within two weeks. Non-compliance triggers full restraint on exhibition, distribution, streaming, promotion in India and abroad.
The Verdict
The plaintiffs succeeded in establishing a prima facie case of unauthorised commercial appropriation of personality rights. The Court declined to restrain theatrical exhibition but imposed two mandatory conditions: (1) Defendants 1-6 to display a prominently worded disclaimer at the beginning (5 seconds each in English and Hindi) and end (2 seconds each before credits in English and Hindi) stating the film does not intend to violate Ganguly's personality rights and his name's use is not acknowledgment/consent, sub judice, within two days of judgment (by 08.11.2026); (2) Either of Defendants 1-6 to furnish an unconditional Bank Guarantee of INR 2,00,00,000 (Rupees Two Crores) in favour of the Registrar General, Delhi High Court, within two weeks (by 20.11.2026). Non-compliance with either direction triggers joint and several restraint on all exhibition, distribution, streaming, OTT availability, promotion and marketing of the Impugned Film and related promotional material (including the Trailer) during pendency of the suit. The observations are confined to the interim application and not the suit merits.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Archival Footage Licences Do Not Cover Personality Rights
The judgment draws a sharp distinction between copyright licences for archival footage and personality rights clearances. Practitioners must advise clients that obtaining footage licences from copyright owners (BCCI, ICC, broadcasters) does not authorise commercial exploitation of identifiable individuals' personas appearing in that footage. Separate personality rights releases are essential. The licences in this case 'clearly exclude use of any personal rights' and cannot substitute for consent.
Narrative Function Trumps Screen Time
The Court rejected the quantitative defence (4 minutes of footage) holding that narrative function and commercial significance determine infringement. Recurring references in fictional script, juxtaposition with protagonist's journey, and promotional emphasis collectively establish commercial appropriation. Practitioners should document not just screen time but narrative integration patterns and promotional usage when assessing personality rights risk.
Prior Exploratory Discussions ≠ Consent
Communications regarding proposed projects, interview requests, and exploratory discussions do not constitute authorisation for the final commercial use. The 2018 email expressing concern about Biopic overlap itself negated consent. Awareness of a teaser presenting one narrative cannot be equated with knowledge of a materially different trailer/film narrative. The seven-year gap followed by expedited release after rival project announcement supports mala fides inference.
Disclaimer and Security as Interim Remedies
Where full injunction is denied due to prior release, courts may impose stringent conditional relief: prominent disclaimers (specifying duration, language, placement) and substantial security deposits (bank guarantees) calibrated to commercial value. Non-compliance triggers automatic full restraint. This template balances free expression with personality rights protection pending trial.
