In Mr. Santosh Kumar R.S vs Mr. Aditya Dhar, decided on 22 April 2026 in Writ Petition No.10911/2026 (C), the High Court of Karnataka before Justice K.S. Hemalekha dismissed a writ petition seeking cancellation of CBFC certification granted to the Hindi film “Dhurandhar-2” on allegations of plagiarism of the petitioner’s original script “D-Saheb.” The petitioner claimed that the respondents had gained access to his script through industry intermediaries and unlawfully copied substantial portions of the story, screenplay and characters. The Court held that allegations of copyright infringement and plagiarism involve disputed questions of fact requiring detailed evidence, comparison of scripts and trial, which cannot be adjudicated in writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. Relying upon the Supreme Court judgment in R.G. Anand vs Delux Films, the Court reiterated that copyright protects expression and not ideas, and that claims of substantial copying must be proved through cogent evidence before a competent civil forum. The Court further held that the powers of the Central Board of Film Certification under Sections 5A and 5B of the Cinematograph Act are confined to examining issues relating to public order, morality, decency and statutory guidelines, and not to adjudicating private proprietary disputes relating to ownership of scripts or plagiarism. Observing that the petitioner failed to establish any statutory violation in the certification process, the Court dismissed the writ petition while reserving liberty to pursue appropriate remedies before the civil court. Neutral Citation: 2026:KHC:XXXXX.
Disclaimer: Donot treat this as substitute for legal advise as it may contain subjective errors.
Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi
#KarnatakaHighCourt, #CopyrightInfringement, #FilmPlagiarism, #CBFC, #CinematographAct, #Dhurandhar2Case, #RGAnandJudgment, #CopyrightLawIndia, #IntellectualPropertyLaw, #EntertainmentLaw, #WritPetition, #FilmCertification, #ScriptPlagiarism, #JusticeKSHemalekha, #IPLitigation, #IndianCopyrightLaw, #CinemaLaw, #LegalNewsIndia, #IPUpdate, #AdvocateAjayAmitabhSuman, #IPAdjutor
====
Karnataka High Court Clarifies That Copyright and Plagiarism Disputes in Films Cannot Be Decided in Writ Jurisdiction Against CBFC Certification
Introduction
The decision of the High Court of Karnataka in Mr. Santosh Kumar R.S vs Mr. Aditya Dhar is an important ruling on the intersection of copyright law, film certification, and writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The judgment delivered on 22 April 2026 by Hon’ble Mrs. Justice K.S. Hemalekha examines whether allegations of plagiarism in a cinematographic work can be adjudicated in a writ petition seeking cancellation of certification granted by the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC). The Court ultimately held that disputes involving copyright infringement, script theft, and plagiarism are private proprietary disputes requiring detailed examination of evidence and therefore cannot ordinarily be decided in writ proceedings. The judgment also clarifies the limited scope of powers exercised by the CBFC under Sections 5A and 5B of the Cinematograph Act, 1952.
The ruling is significant because in recent years several film-related disputes have attempted to invoke writ jurisdiction against CBFC certification on grounds ranging from obscenity to plagiarism. This judgment clearly distinguishes between statutory censorship issues and private copyright disputes. It reiterates that the role of the CBFC is confined to examining whether a film violates standards relating to public order, morality, decency, sovereignty, or other statutory concerns, and not to determine ownership of stories or allegations of copying.
Factual and Procedural Background
The petitioner, Mr. Santosh Kumar R.S., described himself as a writer, director, and producer associated with Passion Movie Makers. He claimed to have authored an original script titled “D-Saheb,” allegedly based on patriotic and anti-terror themes. According to the petitioner, the script, screenplay, character sketches, and related creative material had been registered with the Screen Writers Association and other authorities.
The petitioner alleged that during 2023 he had shared the script with different individuals and production houses within the film industry, including through an intermediary named Dinesh Kumar, who was functioning as a creative producer. The petitioner claimed that the respondents, including film director Aditya Dhar and associated producers, unlawfully copied substantial parts of his script while producing the Hindi movie “Dhurandhar-2.” The petitioner alleged that the film had subsequently been dubbed into multiple regional languages and released widely across India, including on OTT platforms.
Aggrieved by the alleged plagiarism, the petitioner approached the Karnataka High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. He sought a writ of mandamus directing the CBFC to cancel the certification granted to the film under the Cinematograph Act, 1952. He further sought restraint on the screening and distribution of the movie until disposal of the proceedings.
The matter thus came before the Karnataka High Court as a writ petition challenging CBFC certification indirectly on the basis of alleged copyright infringement.
Dispute Before the Court
The central dispute before the Court was whether allegations of copyright infringement and plagiarism could form the basis for cancellation of a CBFC certificate through writ proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution.
The petitioner argued that he was the original author of the script “D-Saheb” and that the respondents had dishonestly copied substantial portions of the story, screenplay, and characters. It was further argued that because the film itself was allegedly based on unlawful copying, the certification granted by the CBFC under Section 5A of the Cinematograph Act was liable to be interfered with. The petitioner contended that unless urgent orders were passed, irreparable injury would be caused because the movie was already being commercially exploited through theatrical release and OTT distribution.
The respondents opposed the maintainability of the writ petition and argued that the dispute essentially related to copyright infringement involving disputed questions of fact requiring trial and evidence. They contended that the CBFC’s role was only to examine films for certification purposes under the Cinematograph Act and not to adjudicate ownership disputes relating to scripts or screenplay.
The Court framed three major points for consideration. First, whether a writ petition alleging copyright infringement is maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution. Second, whether Sections 5A and 5B of the Cinematograph Act can be invoked for adjudicating private disputes relating to copyright infringement. Third, whether writ jurisdiction can be exercised in absence of any challenge to statutory action under the Cinematograph Act.
Reasoning and Analysis of the Judge
Justice K.S. Hemalekha undertook a detailed examination of copyright principles, the nature of writ jurisdiction, and the statutory scheme of the Cinematograph Act.
The Court first emphasized that the petitioner’s grievance fundamentally concerned copyright infringement and plagiarism. Such allegations, according to the Court, necessarily involve detailed factual inquiry including comparison of scripts, proof of authorship, proof of access, and proof of substantial similarity between the competing works. The Court observed that such adjudication requires appreciation of oral and documentary evidence and may even require expert examination.
In this context, the Court relied heavily upon the landmark Supreme Court judgment in R.G. Anand vs M/s Delux Films and Others reported in (1978) 4 SCC 118. The Supreme Court in R.G. Anand had authoritatively laid down principles governing copyright infringement in dramatic and cinematographic works. The Karnataka High Court reproduced and discussed paragraphs 45 and 46 of the Supreme Court judgment in detail.
The Supreme Court in R.G. Anand held that there can be no copyright in an idea, theme, plot, or historical fact. Copyright protection extends only to the form, manner, arrangement, and expression of the idea. The Supreme Court explained that where two creators work on the same subject matter, similarities may naturally arise. However, infringement occurs only when the defendant’s work is a substantial and material imitation of the plaintiff’s original expression.
The Karnataka High Court highlighted the Supreme Court’s observation that one of the safest tests for determining copyright infringement is whether an ordinary viewer gets an unmistakable impression that the later work appears to be a copy of the original. The High Court stressed that such determination cannot be made merely on allegations or superficial similarities and requires a full evidentiary trial.
The Court further noted that the Supreme Court in R.G. Anand recognized the inherent complexity of film-related copyright disputes because films involve wider treatment, broader narratives, and additional creative elements. Therefore, proving piracy in cinematographic works becomes even more fact-intensive.
After discussing copyright principles, the Court turned to the scope of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. The Court relied upon the Supreme Court judgment in Whirlpool Corporation vs Registrar of Trademarks reported in (1998) 8 SCC 1. The Supreme Court in Whirlpool Corporation held that although High Courts possess broad powers under Article 226, writ jurisdiction is generally not exercised where an effective alternative remedy exists unless exceptional circumstances are shown, such as violation of natural justice, lack of jurisdiction, or challenge to vires of legislation.
The Karnataka High Court applied these principles and held that no exceptional circumstance existed in the present case. The petitioner’s grievance was essentially a civil dispute relating to alleged infringement of copyright. Such disputes are specifically governed by remedies available under the Copyright Act, 1957 through civil suits for injunction and damages.
The Court then analyzed Sections 3, 5, 5A, and 5B of the Cinematograph Act, 1952. Section 3 provides for constitution of the Central Board of Film Certification. Section 5 concerns advisory panels assisting the Board. Section 5A deals with grant or refusal of certification. Section 5B lays down principles for guidance in certifying films, including considerations relating to sovereignty and integrity of India, security of the State, public order, decency, morality, defamation, contempt of court, and incitement to offences.
Justice Hemalekha carefully explained that the CBFC functions as a statutory regulatory body tasked with evaluating whether films comply with censorship and certification standards. The Court observed that the Board’s role is essentially regulatory and not adjudicatory regarding private proprietary disputes.
The Court clarified that challenges to CBFC certification may arise in cases involving violation of statutory guidelines, procedural irregularity, obscenity, defamation, public morality, or infringement of constitutional rights. However, allegations of plagiarism or script theft fall outside the statutory mandate of the Board.
The judgment specifically held that Section 5A of the Cinematograph Act does not confer judicial or quasi-judicial power upon the Board to adjudicate title or ownership of screenplay or script. According to the Court, the certification process acts as a “safety and morality filter” and not as a mechanism for deciding copyright disputes.
The petitioner had relied upon the Supreme Court decision in Bobby Art International vs Om Pal Singh Hoon reported in AIR 1996 SC 1846. However, the Court distinguished that decision by observing that Bobby Art International dealt with obscenity, censorship, and freedom of expression issues under the Cinematograph Act rather than copyright infringement.
The petitioner had also relied upon N.P. Amruthesh vs State of Karnataka reported in ILR 1998 KAR 2885. The Karnataka High Court observed that the dispute in N.P. Amruthesh related to allegations that the content of the film violated constitutional values and public morality under the Cinematograph Act, and therefore that precedent had no application to a copyright dispute between private parties.
The Court repeatedly emphasized that claims involving proof of originality, access, and substantial similarity require appreciation of evidence and therefore squarely fall within the jurisdiction of civil courts. It also observed that the petitioner had failed to show any statutory illegality in the process adopted by the CBFC while granting certification to the film.
Final Decision of the Court
The Karnataka High Court dismissed the writ petition and declined to interfere with the certification granted to the film “Dhurandhar-2.” The Court held that allegations of plagiarism and copyright infringement cannot ordinarily be adjudicated in writ proceedings under Article 226 because such disputes involve complex factual questions requiring trial and evidence.
The Court further held that the CBFC has no statutory obligation under Sections 5A or 5B of the Cinematograph Act to investigate allegations of script theft before granting certification. The Board’s role is confined to examining whether the film violates statutory standards relating to morality, decency, public order, and similar concerns.
While dismissing the writ petition, the Court granted liberty to the petitioner to pursue appropriate remedies before a competent civil forum under the Copyright Act, 1957.
Point of Law Settled in the Case
The judgment settles an important legal principle that copyright infringement and plagiarism disputes involving films cannot ordinarily be converted into challenges against CBFC certification through writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. The decision clarifies that the CBFC’s statutory role under Sections 5A and 5B of the Cinematograph Act, 1952 is limited to regulation and certification based on public law considerations such as morality, decency, public order, sovereignty, and related concerns.
The judgment further reinforces that disputes involving originality of scripts, access, copying, and substantial similarity are matters requiring detailed factual adjudication and must be resolved through civil proceedings under the Copyright Act, 1957 rather than through constitutional writ remedies.
Case Details
Title: Mr. Santosh Kumar R.S Vs Mr. Aditya Dhar
Date of Order: 22 April 2026
Case Number: Writ Petition No.10911/2026 (C)
Neutral Citation: 2026:KHC:XXXXX
Court: High Court of Karnataka
Hon’ble Judge: Justice K.S. Hemalekha
Suggested SEO Titles
Karnataka High Court Rules Copyright Disputes Cannot Challenge CBFC Film Certification
Dhurandhar-2 Plagiarism Case: Karnataka High Court Clarifies Scope of CBFC Powers
Copyright Infringement Claims Require Civil Trial, Not Writ Petition: Karnataka High Court
Karnataka High Court on Film Plagiarism and CBFC Certification in Dhurandhar-2 Case
Article 226 Cannot Be Used for Film Copyright Disputes: Karnataka High Court Judgment
CBFC Is Not Forum for Script Ownership Disputes: Karnataka High Court
Karnataka High Court Explains Difference Between Film Certification and Copyright Adjudication
R.G. Anand Principles Reaffirmed by Karnataka High Court in Film Plagiarism Dispute
Film Script Theft Allegations Must Be Tried Before Civil Court: Karnataka High Court
Important Copyright Law Ruling on Cinematograph Act and Writ Jurisdiction
SEO Tags
Karnataka High Court, Copyright Infringement, Film Plagiarism, Dhurandhar2, CBFC, Cinematograph Act 1952, Article 226, Writ Petition, Copyright Act 1957, Film Certification, Script Theft, Intellectual Property Law, Entertainment Law, R G Anand Case, Whirlpool Corporation Case, Bobby Art International, Film Copyright Dispute, Civil Suit for Copyright, Indian Copyright Law, OTT Film Disputes, Justice KS Hemalekha, Legal News India, Media Law, Screenplay Ownership, Copyright Litigation, AdvocateAjayAmitabhSuman, IPAdjutor
Headnote
The Karnataka High Court in Mr. Santosh Kumar R.S vs Mr. Aditya Dhar held that allegations of plagiarism and copyright infringement relating to a cinematographic film cannot ordinarily be adjudicated in writ proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution. The Court ruled that the powers of the Central Board of Film Certification under Sections 5A and 5B of the Cinematograph Act, 1952 are confined to certification based on statutory standards relating to morality, decency, public order, and allied considerations, and do not extend to adjudicating disputes concerning ownership of scripts or screenplay. Relying upon R.G. Anand vs M/s Delux Films, the Court reiterated that copyright infringement claims require detailed examination of evidence regarding originality, access, and substantial similarity and must therefore be pursued before a competent civil court under the Copyright Act, 1957.
Disclaimer: Readers are advised not to treat this as substitute for legal advise as it may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.
Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi
No comments:
Post a Comment