Delhi High Court Declines Immediate Halt on Release of Film 'Doosra' in Sourav Ganguly Personality Rights Dispute

Former Indian cricket captain Sourav Ganguly, alongside production house Luv Films LLP, approached the Delhi High Court seeking an urgent stay on the theatrical release of the Hindi feature film Doosra. Ganguly contended that the movie unlawfully appropriates his persona, identity, and iconic public career moments—most notably his famous balcony celebration at Lord's following India's 2002 NatWest Series win—to market and anchor the project without obtaining his consent or licensing rights.

The matter came before Justice Dinesh Bhatt on the eve of the film's scheduled release. Refusing to grant any interim stay or stall the theatrical rollout, the High Court clarified that cinema screenings could proceed as planned while listing the suit for further hearing.

Legal Topic

Area of Law: Intellectual Property / Media and Entertainment Law

Sub-topic: Personality Rights, Commercial Appropriation, and Sports Broadcast Licensing

Core Legal Issue

The dispute centres on whether the commercial depiction and inclusion of a sports icon's real-life career events, archival match footage, and public persona within a docu-drama or fictional narrative infringes common law personality and publicity rights, particularly where the footage has been licensed directly from the official sports governing body rather than the athlete.

Additionally, the court is called upon to determine whether such use violates existing exclusive biographical contracts entered into by the celebrity with third-party film studios.

What Did the Court Decide?

Justice Dinesh Bhatt declined to pass an ex-parte or emergency interim order blocking the release of Doosra.

Addressing the urgent plea for injunctive relief ahead of the cinema debut, the judge observed, "I have said no stay, so the film can go on." The High Court listed the proceedings for further hearing the following day to examine the contentions and affidavits in detail, leaving the film free to screen in theatres in the interim.

Key Legal Points

• Public Persona vs. Fictional Inspiration: The boundary between an unauthorized biographical exploitation and a fictional storyline drawing creative inspiration from a public sporting milestone.

• Ownership of Broadcast Feeds: Whether an individual athlete retains enforceable image or publicity rights over match footage broadcast during international tournaments, independent of the governing body (BCCI) that owns and licenses the archival media rights.

• Contractual Exclusivity and Third-Party Media: The enforceability of exclusive biopic rights against outside creators who do not produce a direct biography but rely substantially on the athlete's cultural footprint in marketing campaigns.

• Threshold for Interim Film Injunctions: Reaffirmation of judicial restraint against last-minute injunctions that derail scheduled film releases absent an indisputable prima facie case.

Relevant Law

• Common Law Tort of Passing Off and Misappropriation of Personality Rights: Protection of an individual's right to control the commercial exploitation of their identity, name, and likeness.

• The Copyright Act, 1957: Broadcast reproduction rights and provisions governing ownership of cinematographic recordings of public sporting events.

• Specific Relief Act, 1963: Principles regulating temporary and permanent injunctions (balance of convenience, prima facie case, and irreparable injury).

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioners (Sourav Ganguly & Luv Films LLP) Counsel for Ganguly and Luv Films argued that Doosra amounts to a blatant commercial misappropriation of Ganguly's identity and persona without authorization. They submitted that:

• Over a third of the promotional trailer features Ganguly's footage and his leadership during the historic 2002 NatWest Series final, positioning him as a "pseudo hero" to commercially drive ticket sales.

• Ganguly executed an exclusive licensing deal in August 2021 with Luv Films for an authorized biographical film (Dada – The Sourav Ganguly Story), backed by substantial capital, which stands to be prejudiced by unauthorized market confusion.

• The film's marketing falsely suggests Ganguly's endorsement, breaching his personality rights.

Respondents (Filmmakers, Director Abhinay Deo, and Producers) Counsel appearing for the filmmakers opposed the grant of an injunction, contending that:

• Doosra is not a biographical film on Sourav Ganguly, but rather a fictional narrative revolving around an aspiring young girl from Rajasthan who draws personal inspiration from his fighting spirit.

• The archival broadcast footage of the NatWest series utilized in the production was officially and validly licensed from the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI).

• Individual players do not hold proprietary or intellectual property rights over official tournament broadcasts, and fair creative reference to historic sporting milestones does not amount to actionable infringement.

Why Does It Matter?

This litigation adds a significant chapter to India's evolving jurisprudence on personality rights and sports law. Indian courts have increasingly recognized that celebrities possess proprietary control over the commercial use of their voice, name, and likeness. However, this case tests the limits of those protections against bona fide creative expression and official sports broadcasting licenses.

If athletes are recognized as having an independent veto over the use of historical match footage that third-party filmmakers have lawfully licensed from sporting bodies like the BCCI, it could reshape media licensing, sports documentaries, and docu-fictional cinema across the country. Conversely, if public figures cannot prevent substantial promotional reliance on their likeness in third-party films, the commercial value of exclusive biopic rights could face dilution.

Legal Takeaway

A celebrity's personality rights do not automatically give them an absolute veto over creative works inspired by their public achievements, especially where archival footage is legitimately licensed from the copyright-holding sports body. Courts remain cautious about granting last-minute injunctions against theatrical releases unless an unequivocal case of false endorsement or passing off is established.

Sources

Primary Source:

Proceedings before the Delhi High Court in civil suit by Sourav Ganguly & Luv Films LLP against the filmmakers of Doosra (Coram: Justice Dinesh Bhatt, hearing dated October 22, 2026).

Additional Sources:

Official filings and submissions on record before the Delhi High Court.