The Delhi High Court refused an application seeking deletion of several defendants, including actor Akshay Kumar and corporate entities PVR, Inox, and Bata, from a defamation suit arising out of the film Jolly LLB 2. The suit was filed by a retired businessman who contended that certain scenes and references in the movie — shown in multiplexes operated by PVR and Inox and involving the portrayal of a character’s shoes — implied defamatory allegations about his conduct, professionalism, and reputation. The petitioner alleged that the sequences created a false association between him and issues of legal impropriety, despite him having no involvement with the events depicted in the film.
The defendants, including Akshay Kumar (who starred in the film) and the corporate exhibitors, moved to delete their names from the suit on various grounds. They argued that the film was a work of fiction, and that the references complained of did not reasonably identify or refer to the plaintiff in any defamatory sense. It was submitted that no reasonable viewer would associate the portrayal with the petitioner, and that the use of generic or fictional elements could not sustain a defamation claim against individuals and entities not involved in the content creation or distribution in a defamatory manner.
The High Court, while addressing the deletion application, underscored that prima facie material had been placed on record by the plaintiff showing that viewers had drawn inferences linking the on-screen content to him personally, causing reputational distress. The Court observed that the threshold for prima facie consideration at the initial stage is low and that the presence of arguable content cannot be ignored simply because defendants are prominent figures or entities in the film and entertainment industry. It noted that allegations of defamation require careful judicial examination, and that deletion of defendants at an early stage is not warranted unless it is clear beyond doubt that there is no plausible basis for claim.
In rejecting the deletion plea, the bench emphasised that the question of whether the impugned film scenes actually defame the plaintiff, or whether viewers could reasonably identify the petitioner with the on-screen portrayal, are issues of fact that must be explored in substantive hearings rather than disposed of at the preliminary stage. The Court reiterated that applications for deletion must be allowed only in cases where the suit is inherently misconceived or cannot possibly succeed even on a broad reading of the pleadings, and that the present claim did not fall into that category.
The defendants had also contended that the content involved falls within the realm of artistic expression and creative freedom, and that liability for defamation should not extend to performers or exhibitors absent express intent to defame or evidence of actual reference to the plaintiff. While acknowledging the significance of artistic freedom under the law, the High Court held that such freedom is not absolute and must be balanced against the right to reputation guaranteed under the Constitution. The bench indicated that these competing considerations required fuller examination at later stages of litigation.
Accordingly, the High Court declined to delete the names of Akshay Kumar, PVR, Inox, Bata and other defendants from the defamation suit, and directed that the proceedings continue with all parties remaining on record. The order reflects judicial caution in prematurely eliminating parties where a prima facie case has been made out and highlights that questions of identification, defamatory meaning, and harm to reputation are to be assessed through detailed evidence and argument in due course, rather than at the deletion stage itself.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.