What did the court decide on October 23?
The Delhi High Court has asked the makers of Doosra to arrange a screening for the court as it considers Sourav Ganguly’s claim that the film violates his personality rights. Justice Vinod Kumar also sought replies from the defendants to the request for an injunction. The film opened in cinemas on October 23.
Bar & Bench reports that the judge considered viewing the film important to assessing the claim. An oral request to stop an OTT release was rejected at this stage. The court’s decision to seek a screening does not amount to a finding that the film infringes Ganguly’s rights.
[1][2]What are the two sides arguing?
Ganguly and Luv Films, the producer developing his authorised biopic, allege that Doosra’s publicity commercially uses his identity and significant cricketing moments without permission. Their case refers to his captaincy during the 2002 NatWest final and the celebration at Lord’s. They also assert contractual rights associated with the planned biographical film.
The filmmakers dispute that characterisation. According to the Times of India’s PTI-based report, their counsel described Doosra as a fictional account of a middle-class girl from Rajasthan who is inspired by sporting events involving Ganguly. Counsel also said the appropriate rights holders had permitted the use of certain clips. Those competing positions remain arguments before the court, rather than settled conclusions.
[1][2]What happens next for the film?
The matter is listed for October 29, the Times of India reports. The judge said the request for interim relief could be considered after the defendants’ replies. The court had declined to stop the theatrical release on October 22, before Friday’s hearing and screening direction.
Doosra: India’s Other Freedom Struggle is directed by Abhinay Deo and stars Plabita Borthakur, Ankur Vikal and Samidha Guru. For cinema audiences, the immediate position is that the film has reached theatres while the legal dispute continues. The screening and replies are the next steps reported in the case; neither side’s broader claim has been finally resolved.
[2]