Now Reading: Delhi High Court refuses to stay release of film Doosra on Ganguly plea
-
01
Delhi High Court refuses to stay release of film Doosra on Ganguly plea
Delhi High Court refuses to stay release of film Doosra on Ganguly plea
The Story in Brief
The Delhi High Court on Thursday refused to stay the release of the film Doosra, scheduled for theatrical release on 23 October, in a suit filed by former Indian cricket captain Sourav Ganguly and production house Luv Films LLP alleging unauthorised use of Ganguly's personality rights. Justice Dinesh Bhatt orally observed that the balance of convenience favoured the film's makers and said the film can go on. The court listed the matter for hearing on Friday, 23 October.
Ganguly and Luv Films alleged that the film's trailer and promotional campaign exploit his recognisable identity, including his captaincy in the 2002 NatWest Series final and his shirtless celebration at Lord's, without his consent. Luv Films holds exclusive rights to a biopic on Ganguly under an agreement dated 5 August 2021, with its authorised film Dada, The Sourav Ganguly Story scheduled for release on 14 May 2027. The film's makers argued that Doosra is not a biopic but the story of a girl from Rajasthan who draws inspiration from Ganguly, and that due permission was taken from the BCCI for use of footage.
Indian Opinion Analysis
All three sources offer neutral, straight reporting of the same court proceeding, with no discernible editorial slant. Each attributes arguments to both sides: Ganguly's claim of personality rights violation and the film makers' assertion that Doosra is not a biopic and that BCCI permission covers the footage used. The differences are limited to inclusion of detail, Bar and Bench adds the authorised biopic's release date of 14 May 2027, Deccan Herald explains the balance of convenience test, and LiveLaw notes the court listing for 23 October. The uniform coverage reflects the early stage of the litigation: the court refused an interim stay and set a hearing for 23 October, leaving the substantive arguments on personality rights to be heard then.
Coverage: 3 sources, 3 neutral
Sources (3): livelaw.in (neutral report), deccanherald.com (neutral report), barandbench.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.
