Karnataka High Court Rejects Filmmaker Santosh Kumar's Plea To Cancel 'Dhurandhar 2' Certification Over Alleged Plagiarism By Aditya Dhar

The Karnataka High Court has dismissed a writ petition seeking cancellation of the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) certificate granted to the Hindi movie 'Dhurandhar The Revenge' on the allegation that the movie was a plagiarised version of a Bengaluru-based script writer's original script titled 'D-Saheb'.

The single judge bench of Justice K S Hemalekha laid down in unequivocal terms that a copyright infringement claim requires an appreciation of evidence as to whether an idea has been plagiarised or not, and the same cannot be entertained in writ jurisdiction, by relying on R.G. Anand v. M/s Delux Films & Ors.(1978).

“…The burden squarely lies on the person seeking infringement to prove not only that the other side had access to the original work, but also there exists such degree of similarity which led a prudent and reasonable viewer to make an unmistakable impression that the impugned work is a copy of the original.… Such adjudication involves triable issue of facts, including proof of access, originality and copying which cannot be satisfactorily undertaken in a writ jurisdiction that is confined to examining legality of administrative action…” the court observed.

The court held that the petitioner had failed to establish any violation of the statutory guidelines warranting for the Court to interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

It said that merely because a film has been certified under Section 5A of the Cinematograph Act, the same cannot be interfered with, on the ground of alleged plagiarism, particularly when such "allegations pertains to private proprietary rights disputes, which require trial". 

According to the petitioner-writer, Santosh Kumar, he had written a patriotic anti-terror themed script, which was circulated among production houses in 2023. The aforesaid script had also been registered with the Screen Writers Association, the petitioner says in his plea.

The petitioner alleges that Adithya Dhar [R1-Director], Lokesh Dhar [R2-Producer] and Jyothi Deshpande [R3-CEO, Jio Studios] got their hands on the script's copy and depicted it in the 'Dhurandhar 2' movie without the original writer's consent.

The plea sought a writ of mandamus to nullify the CBFC certification granted to the movie under Sections 5A [Power to grant, restrict or refuse certification] and 5B[Principles for guidance in certifying Films] of the Cinematograph Act, and its deletion from all online platforms since it was copied.

In the writ petition, the CBFC Chairperson Prasoon Joshi was also arraigned as the 4^th Respondent.

“…The petitioner has failed to show a legal right 'to have the Board investigate plagiarism under the Cinematograph Act and the remedy lies to the petitioner under the provisions of the Copyright Act and not under the Cinematograph Act'. Section 5A of the Cinematograph Act isa safety and morality 'filter' not plagiarism…”, the court clarified that such an exercise was out of the scope of the Cinematograph Act.

It comes under the ambit of the Copyrights Act, 1957, through the filing of a civil suit, the court further added.

“…There is no statutory duty for the Board to investigate allegations of script theft before issuing a certificate….”, the single judge bench observed after distinguishing the case laws relied upon by the petitioner, which were mostly about obscenity, privacy concerns or defamation as seen in Bobby Art International Vs. Om Pal Singh Hoon and Others (1996).

The court further explained that the CBFC's certification exercise is part of a regulatory function to check whether a film's content conforms to the statutory guidelines relating to contempt of court, safeguards for sovereignty and integrity of India, public order, decency, morality and other constitutional limitations under Article 19(2).

The certification board is not an adjudicating forum for private proprietary rights disputes or title disputes over the script of a film, the court said.

“….this Court finds that the challenge to the CBFC certification lacks a statutory basis, as the Board is not an arbitrator of private proprietary rights. However, regarding plagiarism claim, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner is at liberty to approach the Civil Court for copyright infringement, and the writ petition is not maintainable”, the court held in its order.

Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed. The petitioner was represented by advocate Rajesh K.S.

Case Title: MR. SANTOSH KUMAR .R.S. v. MR. ADITYA DHAR & ORS.

Case No: WP 10911/2026 (C)

Click Here To Read/ Download Order