Delhi High Court Restrains Release of Doosra Over Sourav Ganguly’s Personality Rights
The Delhi High Court has ruled that the film Doosra infringed upon former India cricket captain Sourav Ganguly’s personality and publicity rights. The order places significant restrictions on the film’s release, highlighting the legal risks filmmakers may face when using a public figure’s identity and life story without permission.
The Court directed the film’s makers, Ramesh Deo Productions Private Limited, to deposit Rs. 2 crore and include clear disclaimers in both Hindi and English at the beginning and end of the film. It also restrained the producers from releasing Doosra on OTT platforms or through any other medium.
Why the Court intervened
The case arose from a lawsuit filed by Ganguly along with Luv Films, challenging the unauthorised use of his identity and personal history in the film. According to the Court’s observations, aspects of Ganguly’s personality and events from his life are closely linked to the film’s narrative. That connection, the Court noted, makes it difficult to remove the disputed material from the existing cut without affecting the story.
Rather than treating the issue as a minor credit or labelling concern, the ruling focuses on how a film’s overall narrative can evoke a real person. A character need not necessarily use someone’s name directly for questions about identity and commercial association to arise. Where viewers could reasonably connect a portrayal or storyline to a recognisable public figure, the circumstances of its creation and promotion may become legally significant.
What the required disclaimers must say
The mandated notices must make clear that Ganguly did not consent to the commercial use or depiction of his persona in Doosra. They must also state that the film has no official association with him and was not authorised by him.
For a disclaimer to be useful, it must be prominent and understandable—not buried in small print or shown too briefly to read. Requiring notices in both Hindi and English is intended to make the clarification accessible to a wider audience. However, the disclaimers do not lift the separate restriction on releasing the film. The makers remain barred from distributing it through streaming services or other channels under the Court’s directions.
What the ruling means for Bollywood and biographical films
The decision is likely to draw attention across Bollywood and the wider film industry, where stories inspired by real people are common. Biopics, sports dramas and fictional works based on public events can all involve questions about consent, accuracy and commercial use of identity. The case reinforces the importance of assessing those issues early—before filming, marketing or negotiating a release.
Personality rights generally concern a person’s ability to protect commercially valuable aspects of their identity, such as their name, image, voice or likeness, from unauthorised exploitation. These interests can be especially important for athletes and entertainers, whose identities may be closely associated with endorsements, public appearances and carefully managed professional reputations.
That does not mean every fictional work involving a famous person automatically requires approval. The legal assessment can depend on the specific facts, including how directly the person is identifiable, whether private or personal events are used, how the work is presented, and whether the use suggests endorsement or an official connection. The Doosra order illustrates why filmmakers should not assume that changing a name or describing a project as fictional will, by itself, resolve every concern.
A reminder for producers and streaming platforms
For producers, the dispute offers a practical lesson: research and legal review should be part of development, not an afterthought once a film is ready for release. Production teams working with real-life material may need to consider permissions, source verification, the treatment of sensitive events and the wording of promotional materials. Streaming platforms and distributors may also face uncertainty when a film is subject to an active legal dispute or a court-ordered release restriction.
The Rs. 2 crore deposit and the distribution restraint also show that the consequences of a rights dispute can extend beyond edits or a change in publicity. A delayed release can affect marketing plans, distribution agreements and the commercial value of a project. For filmmakers, resolving identity-related issues before production may be less disruptive than attempting to address them after the final cut is complete.
Ganguly’s authorised biopic is in development
The court case comes as an authorised biographical film about Ganguly is also in the works. Titled Dada: The Sourav Ganguly Story, the project is directed by Vikramaditya Motwane and produced by Luv Ranjan and Ankur Garg. It is scheduled for release on May 14, 2026.
The contrast between the two projects is notable: one has become the subject of a dispute over the use of Ganguly’s identity, while the other is being made with his authorisation. The authorised film is expected to explore the former captain’s journey in cricket, including the achievements and defining moments that made him one of India’s most recognisable sporting figures. Its release will also renew interest in how filmmakers balance dramatic storytelling with the responsibilities involved in portraying real people.
For audiences, the Delhi High Court’s order is a reminder that films inspired by real lives can involve more than questions of storytelling and entertainment. They can also raise issues of consent, reputation and commercial control. As Bollywood and streaming services continue to produce stories rooted in real events, the Doosra case may encourage greater scrutiny of how public figures are represented—and how clearly audiences are told whether a film has their approval.
