Court Rules Copyright Infringement Claims Require Civil Suit, Not Writ Jurisdiction
In a significant judgment, the Karnataka High Court, presided over by Justice K.S. Hemalekha, dismissed a writ petition filed by Mr. Santosh Kumar R.S. against Mr. Aditya Dhar and others, alleging that the Hindi movie 'Dhurandhar-2' was a plagiarized version of the petitioner’s original script titled 'D-Saheb'. The petitioner sought to cancel the certification granted to the film by the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) and restrain its screening across platforms.
The court, while addressing the writ petition (Writ Petition No.10911 of 2026), emphasized that copyright infringement claims, involving allegations of unauthorized use of a script, require a detailed evidentiary examination beyond the scope of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
The petitioner, Mr. Santosh Kumar, claimed to have shared his script with various industry personnel, including the respondents, who allegedly copied the script to produce 'Dhurandhar-2'. However, the court highlighted that such disputes concerning private proprietary rights require a thorough examination of evidence, including proof of access, originality, and substantial similarity, which are matters suited for civil suits under the Copyright Act, 1957.
The judgment cited the landmark Supreme Court case of R.G. Anand v. M/s Delux Films, which established the principles distinguishing between idea and expression in dramatic and cinematographic works. It underscored that a copyright infringement claim must be substantiated with clear and convincing evidence demonstrating substantial copying of the original work's expression.
Furthermore, the court noted that the certification process under the Cinematograph Act, 1952, primarily ensures adherence to statutory guidelines related to public order, decency, and morality, and does not extend to adjudicating private disputes over copyright or ownership of a script. The CBFC's certification cannot be challenged solely on grounds of alleged plagiarism without demonstrating any blatant illegality in the certification process.
Justice Hemalekha clarified that the appropriate remedy for the petitioner lies in filing a civil suit for injunction and damages under the Copyright Act, where parties can present oral and documentary evidence. The court emphasized that writ jurisdiction is confined to examining the legality of administrative action and does not permit detailed evidentiary inquiry or fact-finding trials.
The judgment reiterates that the Board’s duty under Section 5A of the Cinematograph Act is to certify films based on statutory guidelines, and does not encompass investigating allegations of script theft. The court acknowledged the petitioner’s liberty to approach the Civil Court for copyright infringement claims but deemed the writ petition not maintainable.
In conclusion, the Karnataka High Court dismissed the writ petition, thereby reinforcing the principle that copyright infringement disputes necessitate civil litigation for a thorough examination of evidence, and cannot be adjudicated in writ jurisdiction under Article 226.
Bottom line:-
Allegation of copyright infringement and plagiarism related to a film is a matter of private proprietary rights, requiring detailed evidence and trial, which cannot be adjudicated in writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Statutory provision(s): Copyright Act, 1957; Cinematograph Act, 1952 Sections 5A and 5B; Constitution of India, 1950 Article 226.
Mr. Santosh Kumar R.S v. Mr. Aditya Dhar, (Karnataka) : Law Finder Doc id # 2891294
