Now Reading: Delhi HC: ‘Doosra’ violated Ganguly’s rights, can screen with disclaimer
-
01
Delhi HC: ‘Doosra’ violated Ganguly’s rights, can screen with disclaimer
Delhi HC: ‘Doosra’ violated Ganguly’s rights, can screen with disclaimer
The Story in Brief
The Delhi High Court on Friday, 6 November, ruled that the film 'Doosra' prima facie violated former Indian cricket captain Sourav Ganguly’s personality rights by commercially exploiting his identity. Justice Tejas Karia, however, refused to halt the film's theatrical screening, which began on 23 October, noting it was already released.
The court directed the filmmakers to add a disclaimer at the start and end of the film, in English and Hindi in large fonts, within two days stating the film does not have Ganguly’s consent. They must also furnish an unconditional bank guarantee of Rs 2 crore to the court registrar to secure Ganguly’s rights pending the suit.
Ganguly and Luv Films LLP, which is producing his authorised biopic under a 2021 agreement, had sued the makers of 'Doosra' for unauthorised use of his name, image and achievements. The court clarified its order is limited to the interim application and does not express a view on the merits of the suit.
Update, 6 November 2026: Times Now now also reports the story in a wire-style brief, confirming the High Court's finding of a prima facie personality rights violation and the refusal to halt the film's screening. The outlet adds no new factual detail beyond what The Indian Express and LiveLaw provided, and all three sources agree on the court's directions for a disclaimer and a Rs 2 crore bank guarantee.
Indian Opinion Analysis
All three outlets report the Delhi High Court's interim order in near-identical terms: each states that Justice Tejas Karia found a prima facie violation of Sourav Ganguly's personality rights but refused to halt the film's screening, instead requiring a disclaimer and a Rs 2 crore bank guarantee. The Indian Express and Times Now present the order as a news brief with wire copy, while LiveLaw provides the most detailed legal reasoning, noting the court's observation on selective deletion and the two-day deadline for the disclaimer. No outlet adopts a critical or pro-government frame, the coverage is uniformly straight reporting. The difference is only in depth: LiveLaw adds procedural context and precise directions, while the other two focus on the headline ruling. The order itself leaves the suit's merits open, and the next concrete step is the disclaimer's insertion within two days.
Coverage: 3 sources, 3 neutral
Sources (3): indianexpress.com (neutral report), livelaw.in (neutral report), timesnownews.com (neutral report)
This brief was synthesised by AI from the 3 sources linked above, so one read covers every framing they carry. Methodology and corrections.
