Right to privacy cannot be inherited after death: Madras High Court dismisses plea against release of Jayalalitha biopics, Thalaivi, Queen

A deceased person's right to privacy cannot be inherited, ruled the Madras High Court on Friday while dismissing a plea against the release of biopics on late former Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu, J Jayalalitha, including Ramya Krishnan-starrer "Queen" and Kangana Ranaut-starrer "Thalaivi." (Deepa Jayakumar v. AL Vijay and ors).The Bench of Justices R Subbiah and Sathi Kumar Sukumara Kurup was dealing with an appeal moved by Jayalalitha's niece, J Deepa, who claimed that her rights to privacy may also be infringed if a biopic is made without her consent. .In December 2019, a single Judge had dismissed Deepa's plea, prompting her to move the Division Bench in appeal. .Deepa contended that the single judge had erred in not appreciating that she was a "Class 1 legal heir" of Jayalalithaa. As such, she is entitled to institute a suit to safeguard the "posthumous right of privacy" and the dignity and legacy of her late aunt J Jayalalitha, Deepa argued..The Bench, however, disagreed with Deepa's stance. Relying on Managing Director, Makkal Tholai Thodarpu Kuzhumam Limited vs. Mrs V.Muthulakshmi and Melepurath Sankunni Ezhuthassan vs. Thekittil Geopalankutty Nair, it was observed,."A reading of the above judgment clearly shows that the "right of privacy of an individual", cannot be inherited after his or her death by his legal heirs... ... it is clear that a privacy or reputation earned by a person during his or her life time, extinguishes with his or her death. After the death of a person, the reputation earned cannot be inherited like a movable or immovable property by his or her legal heirs. Such personality right, reputation or privacy enjoyed by a person during his life time comes to an end after his or her life time... ... "posthumous right" is not an "alienable right" and the appellant/plaintiff is not entitled for an injunction on the ground that the "posthumous right" of her aunt is sought to be sullied by the respondents/defendants by reason of the release of the film titled as "Thalaivi".".The cases of Rangarajan vs. Jagjivan Ram, Ramesh Pimple vs. CBFC - Bombay and FA Picture International vs. CBFC were also referred to by the Court to point out that artists cannot be compelled to depict events in a particular manner.."The right of freedom of speech and expression enshrined under Article 19 (1) (a) of the Constitution of India is not conditioned/restricted on the premise that a film maker must only portray one particular version of facts ... Artists, film makers and play rights are affirmatively entitled to allude to incidents which have taken place and to present a version of those incidents, which according to them represents a balanced portrayal of social reality. The Constitutional protection under Article 19(1)(a) that a film maker enjoys is not conditional on the premise that he must depict something which is not true to life. The choice is entirely his", reads the judgment..Relying on these judgments, the Court observed that those who hold important positions "must have shoulders which are broad enough to accept with a grace a critique of themselves.".A critical appraisal is the cornerstone of democracy and the power of the film as a medium of expression lies in its ability to contribute to that appraisal, the Court said, referring the FA International Picture case. As such, "the film maker cannot be compelled that they must only portray one particular version of the facts in a web-series or movie", the Bench recalled..Advocates Arun C Mohan and P Saikumaran had appeared for Deepa. Senior Advocate PS Raman and Advocate Vijaya Subramanian appeared for the makers of "Thalaivi", whereas Senior Advocate Satish Parasaran and Advocate AK Raghavulu appeared for director of "Queen.".Deepa had submitted that a biopic on Jayalalithaa cannot be filmed without incorporating the life her (Deepa's) life as well. As such, if the biopic is made without consent, it would invade Deepa's rights to privacy as well, the Court was told. .It was also recounted that Jayalalithaa had been immensely proactive in protecting her legacy while she was alive. Deepa added that the biopic makers may narrate their film/ series in a manner affecting the dignity and reputation of Jayalalitha for commercial enrichment. .The biopic makers have exaggerated and sesationalised the story to portray Jayalalitha in a poor light and a grossly disrespectful manner in "Queen", Deepa argued. All of this is causing her mental strain and may embolden others to trample on Jayalalitha's legacy, it was asserted. .The biopic makers impleaded in the case were AL Vijay (director) and Vishnu Vardhan Induri (producer) for the film "Thailaivi" (Tamil release) or "Jaya" (Hindi release), and Gowtham Vasudev Menon who directed the webseries "Queen." .The "Thalaivi" makers pointed out that the biopic was adapted from a book authored earlier and that Deepa had not moved any legal action against this book i.e. "Thalaivi" authored by Ajayan Bala @ Balaji B, despite it being in the public domain since 2018. .As far as the web series was concerned, the Court was told that it was a fictional recreation of true events, which carried a disclaimer that it is not a biography. .The Court ultimately accepted the contention by the biopic makers that the "right of privacy" of an individual is extinguished with the human being. .As far as the "Thalaivi" film is concerned, the Court added that the movie is yet to be released and that Deepa can move appropriate action for damages after the movie's release. .With respect to the web show "Queen", the Court noted that the web series was already released in an OTT platform and viewed by scores of people. As such, an injunction against the telecast of web series cannot be granted now, it was observed.