The Sushant Singh Rajput death case made it to the headlines again after the Delhi High Court rejected a plea filed by Rajput's father, Krishna Kishore Singh, seeking a stay on the continued streaming of Dilip Gulati's film, Nyay: The Justice, based on the life of the late Bollywood actor.
In his plea, Singh alleged on 11 July that the film violates Rajput's privacy and personality rights and contains defamatory statements.
So, why did the court reject Singh's plea? What are the 'privacy' or 'publicity' rights of a celebrity? And what makes the aforementioned film controversial? The Quint explains.
Why Delhi HC Refused To Stay Streaming of Film About Actor Sushant Singh Rajput
1. The Delhi High Court's Judgment
On 11 July, Justice Hari Shankar refused to pass an injunction order against the streaming of Nyay: The Justice, citing that Rajput's privacy rights as well as his rights of personality and publicity have been extinguished with his death and cannot be inherited by his father, according to a report by Bar & Bench.
In addition to other reasons, the court said that since the film was already released on the OTT platform a while ago and has been watched by thousands of viewers, its streaming cannot be restrained now.
The detailed order also says:
"The information contained and shown in the impugned film is entirely derived from items featured in the media and, therefore, constitutes publicly available information. Besides, the movie being based on information in the public domain, which, at the time of its original dissemination, was never challenged or questioned, cannot be sought to be injuncted at this distance of time."
What About SSR's 'Right to Privacy'?
As per the Delhi High Court, the actor's right to privacy, as well as his publicity and personality rights, could not be claimed posthumously.
"The rights ventilated in the plaint – i.e., the right to privacy, the right to publicity and the personality rights which vested in SSR, are not heritable. They died with the death of SSR. The said rights, therefore, did not survive for espousal by the plaintiff."
Delhi High CourtAdditionally, the court was of the view that:
The film's makers were not required to obtain the consent of Rajput's father before making the film since the information it used was already available in the public domain.
Therefore, restraining the further streaming of the film would curtail the makers' rights under Article 19(1)(a) (freedom of speech and expression).
Expand2. But What are the 'Privacy' & 'Publicity' Rights of a Celebrity?
The Quint spoke to lawyer Satyajit Sarna, to understand the purpose of the privacy, publicity, and personality rights of a celebrity. He explained:
These are personal rights that cannot be transferred from one person to another. However, all three of these concepts are contextual.
Privacy is a very large set of rights. It covers a person's entire private sphere, which includes anything that you live with or do with your family, in your home, or in your personal life. It can even be private acts that you end up doing in public space.
Meanwhile, a celebrity's personality and publicity rights place greater reliance on the commercial value of a celebrity's personality. For example, in the context of advertising, a celebrity can claim personality rights, if their voice is being imitated for a commercial purpose.
In context of the Delhi High Court's refusal to pass an injunction order against Nyay: The Justice, Sarna explained:
"In terms of the court's reasoning, it is entirely consistent with the general law on injunctions, which is given when something is in danger of being destroyed and there's a balance of convenience. Even if the reputation of the person who was alive was at risk, but the film has been available since 2021 and hundreds of thousands of people have already watched it, then whatever has happened has happened. The court will not then give an extraordinary remedy, like an injunction, for the asking."
"Simply put, the law is this way it is because a person's reputation is valuable to them while they're alive. When a person dies, it stops being valuable to them because they are dead. Similarly, their personality and publicity rights also stop being valuable to them because they are dead," he added.
Advocate Ahmad Ibrahim, on his part, talked about how a restraining order on the impugned film in this case could curtail the filmmaker's rights to freedom of speech and expression.
Noting that freedom of speech and expression is the basis of a democracy, he told The Quint, "Time and again, various constitutional courts in India have also reiterated that the rights guaranteed under Article 19 (1) (a) can only be restricted by grounds listed under Article 19 (2)."
"The courts have been very hesitant to curtail such rights through any kind of injunction. In this case, when Rajput's father sought an injunction from the Delhi High Court, it was basically a request to curtail the rights of the filmmakers."
Advocate Ahmad IbrahimBut whether privacy, personality, and publicity rights die with the person (or not) is not set in stone.
Ibrahim shared an instance where the court held that the rights to privacy and publicity of a person could be extended after a person's death.
In the case of 'K Ganeshan and Others vs Film Certificate Appellate Authority', the family of the late LTTE journalist Isaipriya approached the Madras High Court, requesting that it deny permission to the broadcast of a film based on their daughter's life.
The late journalist's family members had sued the film certification authority and successfully received an order of injunction against the film.
"However, this was not purely because the right to publicity of the deceased journalist was being infringed. But this was because the movie apparently showed Sri Lankan leaders in a bad light. And it had the tendency or the possibility to jeopardise the relationship between India and Sri Lanka, which is a ground for restriction under Article 19 (2)," Ibrahim explained.
(At The Quint, we are answerable only to our audience. Play an active role in shaping our journalism by becoming a member. Because the truth is worth it.)
Expand
The Delhi High Court's Judgment
On 11 July, Justice Hari Shankar refused to pass an injunction order against the streaming of Nyay: The Justice, citing that Rajput's privacy rights as well as his rights of personality and publicity have been extinguished with his death and cannot be inherited by his father, according to a report by Bar & Bench.
In addition to other reasons, the court said that since the film was already released on the OTT platform a while ago and has been watched by thousands of viewers, its streaming cannot be restrained now.
The detailed order also says:
"The information contained and shown in the impugned film is entirely derived from items featured in the media and, therefore, constitutes publicly available information. Besides, the movie being based on information in the public domain, which, at the time of its original dissemination, was never challenged or questioned, cannot be sought to be injuncted at this distance of time."
What About SSR's 'Right to Privacy'?
As per the Delhi High Court, the actor's right to privacy, as well as his publicity and personality rights, could not be claimed posthumously.
"The rights ventilated in the plaint – i.e., the right to privacy, the right to publicity and the personality rights which vested in SSR, are not heritable. They died with the death of SSR. The said rights, therefore, did not survive for espousal by the plaintiff."Delhi High Court
Additionally, the court was of the view that:
The film's makers were not required to obtain the consent of Rajput's father before making the film since the information it used was already available in the public domain.
Therefore, restraining the further streaming of the film would curtail the makers' rights under Article 19(1)(a) (freedom of speech and expression).
But What are the 'Privacy' & 'Publicity' Rights of a Celebrity?
The Quint spoke to lawyer Satyajit Sarna, to understand the purpose of the privacy, publicity, and personality rights of a celebrity. He explained:
These are personal rights that cannot be transferred from one person to another. However, all three of these concepts are contextual.
Privacy is a very large set of rights. It covers a person's entire private sphere, which includes anything that you live with or do with your family, in your home, or in your personal life. It can even be private acts that you end up doing in public space.
Meanwhile, a celebrity's personality and publicity rights place greater reliance on the commercial value of a celebrity's personality. For example, in the context of advertising, a celebrity can claim personality rights, if their voice is being imitated for a commercial purpose.
In context of the Delhi High Court's refusal to pass an injunction order against Nyay: The Justice, Sarna explained:
"In terms of the court's reasoning, it is entirely consistent with the general law on injunctions, which is given when something is in danger of being destroyed and there's a balance of convenience. Even if the reputation of the person who was alive was at risk, but the film has been available since 2021 and hundreds of thousands of people have already watched it, then whatever has happened has happened. The court will not then give an extraordinary remedy, like an injunction, for the asking."
"Simply put, the law is this way it is because a person's reputation is valuable to them while they're alive. When a person dies, it stops being valuable to them because they are dead. Similarly, their personality and publicity rights also stop being valuable to them because they are dead," he added.
Advocate Ahmad Ibrahim, on his part, talked about how a restraining order on the impugned film in this case could curtail the filmmaker's rights to freedom of speech and expression.
Noting that freedom of speech and expression is the basis of a democracy, he told The Quint, "Time and again, various constitutional courts in India have also reiterated that the rights guaranteed under Article 19 (1) (a) can only be restricted by grounds listed under Article 19 (2)."
"The courts have been very hesitant to curtail such rights through any kind of injunction. In this case, when Rajput's father sought an injunction from the Delhi High Court, it was basically a request to curtail the rights of the filmmakers."Advocate Ahmad Ibrahim
But whether privacy, personality, and publicity rights die with the person (or not) is not set in stone.
Ibrahim shared an instance where the court held that the rights to privacy and publicity of a person could be extended after a person's death.
In the case of 'K Ganeshan and Others vs Film Certificate Appellate Authority', the family of the late LTTE journalist Isaipriya approached the Madras High Court, requesting that it deny permission to the broadcast of a film based on their daughter's life.
The late journalist's family members had sued the film certification authority and successfully received an order of injunction against the film.
"However, this was not purely because the right to publicity of the deceased journalist was being infringed. But this was because the movie apparently showed Sri Lankan leaders in a bad light. And it had the tendency or the possibility to jeopardise the relationship between India and Sri Lanka, which is a ground for restriction under Article 19 (2)," Ibrahim explained.
(At The Quint, we are answerable only to our audience. Play an active role in shaping our journalism by becoming a member. Because the truth is worth it.)