No violation of right to privacy by films inspired by Sushant Singh Rajput, information on death already in public domain: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court, while rejecting Sushant Singh Rajput's father's plea to prevent the release of movies purportedly based on the life and death of the late actor, has stated that there can be no violation of privacy when information on the events in question is already in the public domain. .A bench of Justice Sanjeev Narula noted that the details of the demise of Sushant Singh Rajput received widespread and protracted news coverage in all media, and there was thus no justification to restrain publication of work that is claimed to be fictional and only draws inspiration from such events. ."The artistic freedom to create fictional works cannot be controlled, limited, or confined within set boundaries. An artist’s inspiration can come from any source, and the court cannot filter real-life events," the Court observed. .The Court further held that the protection to free speech guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) applied with "equal rigour" to publications for commercial gains as well..[BREAKING] Delhi High Court refuses to stay release of film 'Nyay: The Justice,' based on death of Sushant Singh Rajput.However, the issue of whether "commercial celebrity rights" would survive or extinguish after the death of the celebrity was kept open by the Court. ."In the opinion of this Court, whether commercial celebrity rights, such as personality or publicity rights, would survive or extinguish after the death of the celebrity, requires a deeper probe," the Court clarified. .The Court observed that the case involved a variety of issues which would require evidence to be led by the Sushant Singh Rajput's father to prove that his son's persona was "still surviving as a commercial property", which is allegedly being exploited by the filmmakers for profit. ."The foundational facts have to be established and proved and mere status of a celebrity is not enough," the Court opined. .In its discussion, the Court acknowledged that the common law did recognize the commercial value ascribed to the fame or popularity of a celebrity, due to which various rights are attained and enjoyed by them. .A limited class of celebrity rights are even protected as intellectual property rights and the same could survive the death of the celebrity, the Court added. .The Court, however, did not prima facie find favour in Rajput's father's stand that his deceased son had a "posthumous publicity right".."Since it is inextricably interlinked to and birthed from the right of privacy, the Court prima facie finds merit in the submission of the Defendants that the posthumous privacy right is not permissible," the Court said. .The Court referred to a Madras High Court judgement, to further record that the right of privacy of an individual could not be inherited after his death by his legal heirs, and that personality right, reputation or privacy enjoyed by a person during his lifetime ends after his lifetime. .The Court also turned down Rajput's father assertion that he inherited the exclusive right over the life story of his son as an intangible or commercial property or that he had "copyright over the life of SSR". .Since facts which are historical, biographical, or news of the day could not be "copyrighted" as they are available to every person and involve no originality, the Court opined, ."The necessary corollary, therefore, is that anyone is entitled to make movies on events which have actually occurred.".In response to the apprehensions against fair trial were concerned, the Court held that the right to fair trial is a valuable right but no foundation was set up to demonstrate as to how the films would impair the fairness in investigation or trial. ."While it needs no emphasis that the right to fair trial is a valuable right, however, it must be remembered that the investigative agencies and judicial system do not rely on cinematographic films for the purpose of investigation or judicial pronouncements. They have to proceed to decide the issues before them by drawing their own inferences and conclusions based on the materials placed before them, in accordance with the law. The films in question are not documentaries, but work of fiction," the Court said. .The Court also rejected Rajput's father's plea that films would also violate the right to privacy of the family. ."No definite instance has been presented by the Plaintiff to show how this right is infringed and therefore, the plea is devoid of merit," the Court opined. .Krishna Kishore Singh, the father of Sushant Singh Rajput, had moved the High Court earlier this year claiming that many people were taking advantage of his son's death..He argued that the Bollywood actor's death was being seen as an "opportunity to get fame by developing different theories/stories", at the cost of his and his family’s reputation..After learning about movies based on the late actor, like “Nyay: The Justice”, "Suicide or Murder: A star was lost", and “Shashank”, Sushant's father apprehended that various plays, movies, web series, books, interviews or other material might be published which would harm the reputation of Sushant Singh Rajput and his family..It was asserted that in the absence of permission, any publication, production, or depiction of the private life of Sushant Singh Rajput was a blatant and wilful breach of fundamental right to privacy which cannot be taken away without the prior approval of his legal heir..It was further urged that the "personality right of celebrity" should be acknowledged at par with an intellectual property right..Senior Advocate Vikas Singh with Advocates Varun Singh, Deepika Kalia, Akshay Dev, Sammridhi Bendbhar appeared for Rajput's father. .Makers of film 'Nyay: The Justice' were represented by Senior Advocate Chander Lall with Advocates Hiren Kamod, Bhushan M Oza, Anand Mishra, Anees Patel, Vedanta Varma, Nancy Roy. Advocate Vibhor Kush appeared for the legal advisor to the filmmakers. .Advocates A P Singh, Geeta Chauhan, Richa Singh appeared for the makers of another film, ‘Shashank’. .[Read Judgement]