Madras High Court Dismisses Suit Claiming Enthiran Movie Is Infringing Copy Of Story Published In 1996

Justice S Sounthar dismissed the plea by Aarur after noting that as per settled law, copyright cannot not be claimed over an idea or a concept.

“When both the stories are based on the same idea namely Humanoid robot falling in love with a human being, similarities, are bound to occur. As held by the Apex Court in R.G.Anand Vs. M/s.Delux Films and others, it is for the Courts to determine, whether the similarities are fundamental or substantial aspects of the mode of expression…… For the reason best known to the plaintiff, he failed to examine any independent witnesses. Therefore, except the interested testimony of PW.1, there is no evidence available on record to show that the story of the defendants movie is literal imitation of plaintiff's story,” the court said.

Aarur contented that he had written a story about a humanoid robot which was published in the Tamil monthly magazine “Iniya Udayam” in 1996. In 2007, this novel was again published in the book titled “Thik Thik Theepika” and was even circulated in libraries. As per Aarur, the story involved a scientist creating a humanoid robot who then falls in love with the scientist’s partner and commits suicide after learning that they cannot be together.

Aarur claimed that the movie Enthiran is based on his novel and that the makers of the movie illegally stole his story. He sought damages to the tune of one crore rupees and for stopping the screening of the movie. In his support, he also produced letters written by readers claiming that the film was based on his story.

The Director of the movie, Sankar submitted that the story of humanoid robots is several decades old and that Aarur cannot not claim to have invented this concept. He also contended that there are differences in both stories and that the story of Enthiran is his original creation.

The producers of the movie also submitted that there is no question of violation of copyright since both stories are presented differently. It was also submitted that the present suit was filed only because the movie has been a huge commercial success and that the writer wants to gain unjust enrichment.

The court, after going through the letters allegedly written to the writer by readers, noted that though the letters are claimed to be from different persons living in different areas, they have consecutive courier serial numbers and were posted on the same day and from the same place. 

“Hence, similar letters on the same day by same courier with successive serial numbers appears to be un-natural to this Court. Therefore, Ex.P7 series cannot be taken into consideration in the absence of any other evidence,” the court said.

Case Title: Aarur Tamilnadam v S Sankar and others

Citation: 2023 Livelaw (Mad) 169

Counsel for the Plaintiff: Mr.G.Vairava Subramanian for M/s.P.T.Perumal

Counsel for the Respondents: Mr.Arun C.Mohan for M/s.D.Saikumaran for D1 Mr.AL.Somayaji (Sr. Advocate) for M/s.Sneha for D2 M/s.B.K.Girish Neelakandan for D3