Sujoy Ghosh Gets Relief From Supreme Court In Kahaani 2 Copyright Case

Sujoy Ghosh Gets Relief From Supreme Court In Kahaani 2 Copyright Case

Introduction

The Supreme Court of India has issued notice on a plea filed by filmmaker Sujoy Ghosh seeking to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against him for alleged copyright infringement over his 2016 film Kahaani 2: Durga Rani Singh. A bench of Justices PS Narasimha and R Mahadevan's decision to direct that no coercive steps be taken against Ghosh and to exempt him from personal appearance before the Magistrate during the pendency of the proceedings showcases the complexities and challenges in copyright infringement cases.

Factual Background

The controversy began with a complaint filed by Umesh Prasad Mehta, who alleged that Ghosh had copied the script of his work titled Sabak in Kahaani 2. Mehta claimed to have shared his script with Ghosh in June 2015 for obtaining a recommendation letter required for registration. He alleged that Ghosh used the material without consent in the film starring Vidya Balan, which was released in December 2016.

Procedural Background

The Chief Judicial Magistrate of Hazaribagh took cognizance of Mehta's complaint and issued summons to Ghosh on June 7, 2018, after finding a prima facie case of copyright infringement. Ghosh subsequently approached the Jharkhand High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) to quash the proceedings. However, the High Court dismissed his plea on April 22, 2025, holding that it would not conduct a “mini-trial” at the quashing stage and that the issues raised could be tested during the trial.

Issues Involved

1. Copyright Infringement: The central issue revolves around whether Ghosh infringed Mehta's copyright by allegedly copying his script without consent.

2. Territorial Jurisdiction: Another critical issue is whether the Hazaribagh court has the jurisdiction to try the case, given that the production process of Kahaani 2 took place in Mumbai.

Contentions of the Parties

Sujoy Ghosh's Contentions: Ghosh vehemently denied the allegations, asserting that he neither met Mehta nor received any script from him. He emphasized that he began working on Kahaani 2 in 2012 and had registered the final script with the ScreenWriters Association by December 2013, well before the alleged script exchange in 2015. Ghosh's counsel, Senior Advocate Siddhartha Dave, argued that the Magistrate's summoning order was passed without comparing the scripts or conducting any application of mind, and that the complaint failed to disclose even a prima facie case.

Umesh Prasad Mehta's Contentions: Mehta alleged that Ghosh's film was a reproduction of his work and amounted to theft of his creative content. He contended that Ghosh's actions constituted a clear case of copyright infringement.

Reasoning & Analysis

The Supreme Court's notice and the interim directions in this case suggest a willingness to scrutinize the allegations and the lower courts' decisions. The case raises significant questions about the application of copyright law, particularly in the context of criminal proceedings. The outcome will likely hinge on the Court's evaluation of the evidence, including the comparison of the scripts and the credibility of the parties' claims.

The legal principles at play include the protection of intellectual property rights under the Copyright Act, 1957, and the jurisdiction of courts in intellectual property cases. The Court's decision will have implications for filmmakers and creators, highlighting the importance of documenting the development of creative works and the need for clarity in contractual relationships.

Final Outcome

The matter is now pending before the Supreme Court, with the respondents required to file their counter affidavit. The Court's final decision will provide clarity on the legal principles governing copyright infringement and the jurisdictional aspects of such cases.

Implications

The Supreme Court's decision in this case will have far-reaching implications for the film industry and intellectual property rights in India. A decision in favor of Sujoy Ghosh could set a precedent for filmmakers and creators, emphasizing the importance of documenting their work and protecting their intellectual property rights. On the other hand, a decision in favor of Mehta could highlight the need for greater vigilance in protecting creative works from infringement.

In this case Sujoy Ghosh was represented by Mr. Siddhartha Dave, Senior Advocate.