‘Doosra’ Prima Facie Commercially Exploits Sourav Ganguly’s Persona, But Delhi HC Allows Screenings With Disclaimer And ₹2-Crore Guarantee

In brief

The question

1. Whether the film’s use of Plaintiff No. 1’s identity, persona, likeness and achievements, in its narrative and promotional material, prima facie infringed his personality and publicity rights so as to warrant interim relief.

The court held

The Court held, prima facie, that the Plaintiffs had established a case of infringement of Plaintiff No. 1’s personality and publicity rights, but did not immediately restrain exhibition of the already released film.

It also directed

It directed the Defendants to display specified disclaimers in English and Hindi at the beginning and end of the film within two days, and to furnish an unconditional bank guarantee of ₹2 crore within two weeks.

On failure to comply with either direction within the stipulated time, the Defendants would be restrained, jointly and severally, from exhibiting, distributing, streaming or otherwise exploiting the film and from disseminating promotional material that commercially appropriates Plaintiff No. 1’s identity and persona during the suit.

The Court clarified that its observations were confined to the interim application and did not determine the merits of the suit.

01Facts

Plaintiff No. 1, former captain of the Indian cricket team, and Plaintiff No. 2, a film production company, sued the producers and distributor of Doosra.

The film combines a fictional narrative about a woman named Tara with archival footage and references to Plaintiff No. 1’s cricketing career, including India’s 2002 NatWest Final victory.

The Plaintiffs alleged that the film and its promotion commercially appropriated Plaintiff No. 1’s identity and persona without authorisation and prejudiced the life-rights agreement for a planned biopic.

The Defendants relied on archival-footage licences, prior communications with Plaintiff No. 1, and freedom of expression.

The film was theatrically released on 23 October 2026, before the Court viewed it and the promotional material while considering the Plaintiffs’ interim-injunction application.

¶ 17–29, 33

02Issues

i.1. Whether the film’s use of Plaintiff No. 1’s identity, persona, likeness and achievements, in its narrative and promotional material, prima facie infringed his personality and publicity rights so as to warrant interim relief.

¶ 34, 43–45

ii.2. Whether the Defendants’ archival-footage licences, prior communications with Plaintiff No. 1, and the delay in bringing the proceedings defeated the Plaintiffs’ claim for interim relief.

¶ 47–48, 59–65

iii.3. Whether the appropriate interim relief was to restrain exhibition of the film, require alterations or disclaimers, or impose other protective conditions.

¶ 68–70

03Law Applied

The application was considered under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, governing interim injunctions.

¶ 1

The Court treated personality/publicity rights as protecting an individual’s ability to control the commercial exploitation of their identity and persona, including the right to authorise or decline such use.

¶ 35, 41

Under Titan Industries Ltd. v. Ramkumar Jewellers, the relevant elements include an enforceable right in the individual’s identity or persona and the individual’s identifiability from the defendant’s use.

¶ 42

These rights must be balanced against freedom of speech and artistic expression; the inquiry concerns the nature, manner and purpose of the use, including whether the identity is used in legitimate storytelling or appropriated to derive commercial benefit from the individual’s recognition.

¶ 51–52

Permission to use copyright-protected archival footage does not, without more, amount to the individual’s authorisation to exploit their personality rights.

¶ 59

The Court also considered R. Rajagopal v. State of T.N., distinguishing the public-record character of historical events from a claim concerning commercial use of an individual’s identity and persona.

¶ 66

04Reasoning

The Court found that Plaintiff No. 1 was readily identifiable and that the film did more than depict him incidentally as part of cricket history: his career and persona were repeatedly used as a reference point to advance Tara’s fictional story, while the promotional material further associated him with the film.

¶ 43, 49–58

The Court considered that the juxtaposition between Tara’s personal journey and Plaintiff No. 1’s cricketing achievements was created by the narrative and was not, on the material before it, merely an incidental historical reference.

¶ 50–54

The footage licences addressed copyright permission, not authorisation to commercially exploit Plaintiff No. 1’s persona.

¶ 59

Nor did the earlier correspondence establish consent to the particular use in the completed film; the Court found that the teaser and trailer presented materially different narratives and rejected delay and acquiescence as grounds to deny relief.

¶ 61–65

The Court therefore found a prima facie case of unauthorised commercial exploitation, but concluded that removing selected scenes was not a workable alternative because the two narrative strands were interwoven.

¶ 68–70

Given the film’s theatrical release, it allowed continued public viewing subject to conditions.

¶ 68–70