'If I Get Death Sentence, Can It Be Reversed?': Darshan Opposes 'BOSS' Release, Says It Will Prejudice Fair Trial In Renukawamy Murder Case

Actor Darshan and his wife Vijayalakshmi Darshan told the Karnataka High Court on Tuesday [July 7] that the trial court order vacating stay on release of the Kannada film 'BOSS'— allegedly based on ongoing Renukawamy murder case, would irreversibly prejudice his right to fair trial. 

The single judge bench of Justice Pradeep Singh Yerur heard the matter, where Senior Counsel S. Shyam Sundar, appearing for the appellants, argued that the film's release would cause irreparable harm to the actor's reputation and prejudice his right to a fair trial.

Sundar submitted that the trial court had initially, on March 27, granted an ad-interim injunction against the film after finding prima facie similarities between its teaser and the events of the Renukaswamy murder case. However, on May 2, the trial court dismissed the stay application, primarily relying on the fact that the film had received certification from the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) and that the production house would incur huge financial losses if it was stayed at this juncture.

He argued that the trial court erred in giving primacy to the CBFC certificate over the judicial findings it had itself made earlier in the ad interim order. He pointed out that the CBFC is itself a defendant in the suit, and the reliefs sought include prayers against the certification body.

“...The court [trial court] here appreciates my situation and an ad interim order is given granting relief…Later, CBFC granting certificate is used as fulcrum to vacate the interim stay… CBFC is yet to be served and two reliefs are sought against them. Tomorrow, if certificate issued to the movie is cancelled and it is answered in my favour, what would have happened in my case, the water will have flown under the bridge…if interim order is continued, the only loss they would accrue would be financial loss…”, Sundar submitted.

“…I get a death sentence, can it be reversed?” he continued, highlighting the irreversible nature of the prejudice to his fair trial rights. He submitted that monetary loss could be reimbursed by the actor if the trial culminates in the favour of defendant-producer and director of the movie.

The counsel also told the court that there was an imminent threat of witnesses watching the movie and getting influenced by it.

Real content projected in media put in the film: Darshan

Sundar said that Defendants 1 and 2 [Producer and Director] had admitted that the movie is attributable to the actor.

Referring to what CBFC took note of, Sundar said,"Some glaring similarities of the movie… if the movie was not similar, the CBFC would not have said this…[CBFC says] reduce blurred online videos, exact TV clippings in my case copied and put in the movie… real content projected in media has been extracted and put in the film… thirteen similarities with my case were there in a one-minute teaser itself”.

Sundar also drew the court's attention to an April 30 order where a coordinate bench had deprecated the conduct of media channels in publishing unverified information despite subsisting injunctions. He submitted that the movie, by allegedly depicting the celebrity, his trial and its outcome, would influence witnesses, especially since the criminal trial is proceeding on a day-to-day basis, after the Supreme Court mandated that the trial should be completed in six months.

The appellants also argued that the trial court's order vacating the injunction only for defendants 1 and 2 (the producer and director) created a chaotic situation, as other defendants, including the CBFC, had not yet appeared before the court. He relied on a recent judgment of the Karnataka High Court [MFA 231/2026] to contend that an interim injunction cannot be partially vacated against certain defendants alone.

“…The trial court has issued notices to all defendants…The coordinate bench of this High Court has said that when there are multiple defendants, and the court grants an ad interim order, notices are issued… Later, when only one defendant approaches the court and seeks vacation of interim order, and other defendants are yet to come, can it be done? The Hon'ble High Court held that interim order cannot be vacated in respect of one or two defendants and continue in respect of other defendants until all the defendants come”, Senior Counsel said further.

“...In the teeth of all these things, the learned judge[trial court] would say because CBFC has certified, I won't interfere, then who is going to try my prayers against CBFC. My main relief sought is against CBFC [Cancellation of Certificate]. Now literally the view taken by judge is that CBFC is over and above the Section 9 CPC Court …Section 9 CPC is so fertile the court will try all the government agencies too unless explicitly barred…” he said. 

Movie is fictional work, does not mirror Darshan's life: Producer

Meanwhile Senior Counsel Vivek Subba Reddy, appearing for producers Siri Productions, strongly refuted the appellants' claims stating that Darshan's suit before trial court is itself not maintainable against the CBFC, citing Section 7(F) [Bar on legal proceedings for acts done in good faith] of the Cinematograph Act, 1952.

He submitted that the ad interim injunction too was only against defendants 1 and 2 and that the appellants cannot find fault with the CBFC not being heard.

The senior counsel distinguished the film from a biopic, stating that the movie 'BOSS' is a fictional work about a club cricketer who is known by the moniker 'Boss'. He submitted that the film does not contain any photographs, family details, or professional details of the actor Darshan.

The counsel also added that the film's protagonist is not a celebrity, and there is no resemblance to any living person.

“…the story line is different; the disclaimer is directed to be added by CBFC which was done. There is a difference between the life biopic of the plaintiff and a work of fiction… This is not a life biopic nor does it mirror the life of a plaintiff”, the counsel added.

He also pointed out that the CBFC had directed edits, including increasing the time for the disclaimer to thirty seconds and changing character names that had analogies to two of the accused in the charge sheet.

The senior counsel, relying on apex court precedents such as Nachiketa Walhekar vs Central Board Of Film Certification (2018) argued that the mere depiction of sub-judice matters in a film would not affect the evidence on record. He also cited the Auto Shankar case, where the Supreme Court held that the right to privacy ceases when matters are already in the public domain.

At this juncture, the court asked, “…In Bollywood movies, they were trying to portray Dawood Ibrahim and Phoolan Devi etc. Whether they went to the court?”

Reddy said that Phoolan Devi went to court and an injunction in her favour was rejected. He further argued that the film uses only information that is already in the public domain through media reports and does not penetrate the private sphere of the actor's life.

"The courts will always be required to look at the material on record, not the movie," Reddy submitted, adding that he is willing to give an affidavit undertaking that at no point will the film be attributed to any specific individual.

The matter is now listed on Wednesday for further hearing.

Case Title: MR. DARSHAN SRINIVAS & ANR v. SIRI PRODUCTIONS & ORS

Case No: MFA No. 4257/2026 (CPC)