[ad_1]
One judge in Justice C Hari Shankar in his July 11 order dismissed an application by the father of Sushant Singh Rajput (SSR) who claimed that the film was made on the basis of “defamatory statements and news articles, alleging that Sushant Singh Rajput was prone to many vices.” Such as drug addiction, etc., without any verification and without obtaining any report from any official agency to that effect.”
SSR’s father also argued that no one should post anything about the late actor whether it be “praising or critical” without his consent.
Justice Shankar, who has seen the film, notes, “The remedy sought in the lawsuit relates entirely to SSR. The rights that Prayer seeks to protect in the lawsuit are the rights of privacy, publicity and personality that were vested in security sector reform.” The rights cited in the lawsuit … are not hereditary. They died the death of the SSR. He added that the aforementioned rights, therefore, were not left for the plaintiff to adopt.
He said that the information in the film was drawn entirely from “elements that have appeared in the media and therefore constitute publicly available information”.
“In making a film on the basis of it, it cannot therefore be said that the defendants violated any right of the SSR, let alone the plaintiff, especially since the said information was not questioned or challenged when it appeared in the media, either by the SSR or by the plaintiff. It also The defendants were not required to obtain the consent of the plaintiff before shooting the film,” Judge Shankar noted.
Assuming that the film infringed the late artist’s “publicity rights” or defamed him, the court said, “the infringed right is personal to SSR, and it cannot be said to have been inherited by the plaintiff.”
“All valid wrongdoings, which the plaintiff alleges in the suit, are not his, but are SSR offenses. SSR is no more. The rights themselves are not inheritable. The plaintiff does not seek to claim that SSR delegated to the plaintiff at any time of Besides, a contested film, which is based on information in the public domain, which was not contested or questioned at the time of its original publication, cannot be claimed for injunctive release in this time period, especially when it is It had already been released on Lapalap platform a while back and thousands must have watched it by now.It cannot be said that the film violates Article 19 (2) of the Constitution of India.The High Commissioner said ordering further release of the film would violate the rights of the accused under Article 19 (1) (a)”.
There was no doubt in his mind, Justice Shankar noted, that the film is an “overt re-enactment” of “the life and times of a Rajput, with great emphasis on the circumstances leading to his death and the ensuing investigation”. He said that the characters in the film were “just aliases” of “Sushant Singh Rajput, Rhea Chakraborty and Rajput’s father”.
Noting that the concept of celebrity rights as “a distinct set of rights available only to celebrities” is “unacceptable,” Justice Schenker said, “The law cannot allow itself to be a means of promoting celebrity culture. The rights that flow from one’s personality and personality will be available to all And not just for celebrities. The rights that are granted because of the private personal accomplishments of individuals must of course be dutifully protected and deserve to be recognized. This is very different from giving one extra rights just because of being a celebrity.”
Justice Shankar also rejected SSR’s father’s argument that allowing the film to be televised would prejudice the right to a fair, free and impartial trial of the circumstances surrounding SSR’s death. The judge added, “Our legal system, fortunately, is not so capricious as to justify any apprehension that the custodians of justice, who are its soul and backbone, will decide on the basis of facts captured on film.”
However, Judge Schenker said that the plaintiff’s (father’s) “right” to “preserve and sue the principal suit” with respect to his claim for damages for the defendants – producers and directors, is “preserved”. He said: “This court does not express an opinion on the merits.”
The movie is about an upcoming actor who dies and questions about his death are still unanswered. The court indicated that it shows his father living with his daughters and interacting with the media, which raises questions about the death of his son.
Among other things, the film in flashback mode shows the actor giving auditions and then shooting for Pavitra Bandhan as well as his parting ways with his serial co-star as he wishes to move on in life. It also shows one of his films cricket It also hit the box office.
[ad_2]
