The Delhi High Court has ruled that the Hindi film Doosra infringed former India cricket captain Sourav Ganguly’s personality and publicity rights. In directions that could reshape how producers approach real-life stories, the court ordered Ramesh Deo Productions Private Limited to deposit Rs 2 crore and insert disclaimers in Hindi and English at the beginning and end of the film.
The order also restrains the makers from releasing Doosra on OTT platforms or through any other medium at present. The ruling arose from a suit filed by Sourav Ganguly along with Luv Films, the production house behind his authorised biography.
The ruling at a glance
- Ramesh Deo Productions Private Limited must deposit Rs 2 crore.
- Disclaimers must run in Hindi and English at the start and end.
- Doosra cannot release on OTT or any other medium for now.
- The disclaimers must say Ganguly never consented and the project has no official authorisation.
The court observed that elements of Ganguly’s persona and incidents from his life are closely connected to the film’s narrative. Removing those portions from the final cut, the court noted, is difficult. That is why the order leans on prominent disclaimers rather than a simple edit.
Why personality rights matter here
Personality and publicity rights protect a person against the unauthorised commercial use of their name, image, likeness and identifiable life story. For a figure as recognisable as Ganguly, the line between inspiration and appropriation is often where these cases turn. This ruling signals that an interim court can set a monetary price and pause a release even after a film has been shot.
The order also lands at a telling moment. Ganguly’s authorised biography, Dada: The Sourav Ganguly Story, is directed by Vikramaditya Motwane and produced by Luv Ranjan and Ankur Garg, with a scheduled release on May 14, 2026. An unauthorised project borrowing a cricketer’s life in the same window would complicate the cultural and commercial memory of that story.
What filmmakers should do
Producers working with real-life material should clear personality rights before production, not after a cut exists. A disclaimer is a mitigation, not a licence; this order requires one precisely because the court found the infringement had already occurred. Budgeting for clearance fees or a court-ordered deposit should be part of the risk calculation for any project that borrows a living person’s life.
Source: bollywoodHungama.com
Comments