Delhi High Court Directs ₹2 Crore Security To Protect Sourav Ganguly’s Personality Rights

The Delhi High Court has fortified the boundaries of celebrity personality rights, ruling that the unauthorized commercial exploitation of a public figure's persona to drive interest in a fictional narrative constitutes a prima facie infringement of common law rights. By directing the producers of the film ‘Doosra’ to deposit a ₹2 crore bank guarantee and issue prominent disclaimers, the court established that even licensed archival footage cannot be used as a vehicle to trade upon the goodwill and identity of a legendary sportsman without explicit consent.

A single-judge bench of Justice Tejas Karia adjudicated the application for interim relief, balancing the creative freedom of filmmakers against the proprietary interests of individuals in their public reputation. The court examined the intersection of archival footage licensing under the Copyright Act, 1957 and the independent common law protections afforded to a celebrity's likeness and persona.

Key Takeaways

Personality Rights vs. Archival Footage

Licensing rights for match footage do not grant a blanket authorization to exploit the individual personality rights of the players featured within that footage for commercial film narratives.

Docufiction Boundaries

Creative works that interweave fictional stories with real-life celebrity milestones must obtain specific consent if the celebrity’s identity is used as a primary commercial attraction.

Mandatory Financial Security

In cases of alleged infringement where a film has already been theatrically released, courts may impose substantial financial security, such as bank guarantees, to protect the plaintiff's potential claim for damages.

Court Observation on Commercial Exploitation

The court observed that the film ‘Doosra’ effectively created two parallel narratives one fictional and one tracing the professional journey of the former Indian Captain which were so interwoven that the celebrity’s persona was utilized to generate audience interest. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "The Impugned Film draws upon significant milestones in Plaintiff No. 1’s cricketing journey that have contributed to his public recognition and the distinctive identity associated with him... Plaintiff No. 1 is entitled to determine the manner in which his identity and persona are commercially presented through a narrative of his own."

The Court further clarified that the right of publicity, as explored in D.M. Entertainment (P) Ltd. v. Baby Gift House and Zacchini v. Scripps-Howard Broadcasting Company, protects against the unauthorized appropriation of a persona for unearned commercial gain. It held that the use of identity in this instance was not merely incidental to a historical account but was a deliberate attempt to ride on the coattails of the celebrity’s persona.

Mandatory Directions Issued by the Court

The Court has the following directions:

"(i) Defendants shall ensure that an appropriately worded disclaimer is displayed prominently in large fonts at the beginning in both English and Hindi languages having duration of 5 seconds each immediately after the existing disclaimer and the end of the Impugned Film in both English and Hindi languages having duration 2 seconds each prior to the commencement of credits clearly stating that the Impugned Film is not intended to violate or infringe the personality rights of Mr. Sourav Ganguly and that the use of his name in the Impugned Film shall not be construed as his acknowledgment of or consent to such use, which remains sub judice in the present proceedings, within two days of the date of this Judgment; and

(ii) either of the Defendant Nos. 1 to 6 shall furnish an unconditional Bank Guarantee for INR 2,00,00,000 (Rupees Two Crores only) in favour of the worthy Registrar General of this Court, as security to protect the Plaintiffs’ rights during the pendency of the Suit within two weeks from the date of this Judgment."

Ratio

The core legal principle established is that the acquisition of archival footage licenses from copyright owners does not equate to a waiver of an individual's personality or publicity rights. When a creative work uses a celebrity's identifiable persona and achievements as a recurring reference point to support a fictional narrative or to generate commercial interest, such use requires specific authorization from the individual. The right to control the commercial display and exploitation of human identity remains a proprietary interest of the individual.

Background

The dispute arose when former cricketer Sourav Ganguly and a production house (holding rights for his upcoming biopic) moved the court against the film ‘Doosra’. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants unauthorizedly used Ganguly’s persona, likeness, and iconic moments specifically the 2002 NatWest Final celebration to promote their film.

The defendants argued that the film was a docudrama about a fictional character, Tara, and that the cricketing footage was merely inspirational background, properly licensed from the BCCI and other broadcasters. They cited Krishna Kishore Singh v. Sarla A. Saraogi to argue that historical events in the public record cannot be subjected to personality rights. However, the court distinguished these arguments, noting that the defendants had approached the plaintiff for an interview in 2017 but proceeded without consent when concerns about the biopic were raised. Relying on principles in Titan Industries Ltd. v. Ramkumar Jewellers, Jaikishan Kakubhai Saraf v. Peppy Store, and Shivaji Rao Gaikwad v. Varsha Productions, the court found a prima facie case of commercial appropriation. While the court declined to halt the theatrical screening, it imposed the bank guarantee and disclaimer requirements to balance the equities.

Case Details:
Case No.: CS(COMM) 1156/2026
Case Title: Sourav Ganguly & Anr. Versus Masha Sajdeh & Ors.
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. J. Sai Deepak, Senior Advocate with Ms. Jaya Goyal, Ms. Manmeet Kaur, Ms. Gitika Agarwal, Mr. Arjun Agarwal and Mr. K. K. Makhija, Advocates.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Sourav Kirpal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Ameet Naik, Mr. Dhruv Anand, Ms. Madhu Gadodia, Mr. Dhananjay Khanna, Ms. Bhavya Verma, Mr. Sanjeevi Seshadri, Ms. Sakshi Dube, Ms. Khushi Aggarwal, Ms. Unnati Gambani and Ms. Arya, Advocates for D-1 to D-6; Mr. Shivam Goel, Ms. Ramya S. Goel, Ms. Sanya Sharma and Ms. Ishika Kanyal, Advocates for D-7.

Source: 2026 CaseBase(DEL) 7540