Introduction
The decision of the High Court of Karnataka in Mr Santosh Kumar R.S. vs Mr Aditya Dhar is an important ruling on the intersection of copyright law, film certification, and writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
The judgement delivered on 22 April 2026 examines whether allegations of plagiarism in a cinematographic work can be adjudicated in a writ petition seeking cancellation of certification granted by the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC).
The court ultimately held that disputes involving copyright infringement, script theft, and plagiarism are private proprietary disputes requiring detailed examination of evidence and therefore cannot ordinarily be decided in writ proceedings.
The judgement also clarifies the limited scope of powers exercised by the CBFC under Sections 5A and 5B of the Cinematograph Act, 1952.
Importance Of The Ruling
The ruling is significant because in recent years several film-related disputes have attempted to invoke writ jurisdiction against CBFC certification on grounds ranging from obscenity to plagiarism.
This judgement clearly distinguishes between statutory censorship issues and private copyright disputes.
It reiterates that the role of the CBFC is confined to examining whether a film violates standards relating to public order, morality, decency, sovereignty, or other statutory concerns and not to determine ownership of stories or allegations of copying.
Factual And Procedural Background
The petitioner, Mr Santosh Kumar R.S., described himself as a writer, director, and producer associated with Passion Movie Makers.
He claimed to have authored an original script titled “D-Saheb”, allegedly based on patriotic and anti-terror themes.
According to the petitioner, the script, screenplay, character sketches, and related creative material had been registered with the Screen Writers Association and other authorities.
Allegations By The Petitioner
The petitioner alleged that during 2023 he had shared the script with different individuals and production houses within the film industry, including through an intermediary named Dinesh Kumar, who was functioning as a creative producer.
The petitioner claimed that the respondents, including film director Aditya Dhar and associated producers, unlawfully copied substantial parts of his script while producing the Hindi movie “Dhurandhar-2”.
The petitioner alleged that the film had subsequently been dubbed into multiple regional languages and released widely across India, including on OTT platforms.
Approach Before The Karnataka High Court
Aggrieved by the alleged plagiarism, the petitioner approached the Karnataka High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.
He sought a writ of mandamus directing the CBFC to cancel the certification granted to the film under the Cinematograph Act, 1952.
He further sought restraint on the screening and distribution of the movie until disposal of the proceedings.
The matter thus came before the Karnataka High Court as a writ petition challenging CBFC certification indirectly on the basis of alleged copyright infringement.
Dispute Before The Court
The central dispute before the Court was whether allegations of copyright infringement and plagiarism could form the basis for cancellation of a CBFC certificate through writ proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Arguments Of The Petitioner
The petitioner argued that he was the original author of the script “D-Saheb” and that the respondents had dishonestly copied substantial portions of the story, screenplay, and characters.
It was further argued that because the film itself was allegedly based on unlawful copying, the certification granted by the CBFC under Section 5A of the Cinematograph Act was liable to be interfered with.
The petitioner contended that unless urgent orders were passed, irreparable injury would be caused because the movie was already being commercially exploited through theatrical release and OTT distribution.
Arguments Of The Respondents
The respondents opposed the maintainability of the writ petition and argued that the dispute essentially related to copyright infringement involving disputed questions of fact requiring trial and evidence.
They contended that the CBFC’s role was only to examine films for certification purposes under the Cinematograph Act and not to adjudicate ownership disputes relating to scripts or screenplays.
Issues Framed By The Court
The Court framed three major points for consideration.
- Whether a writ petition alleging copyright infringement is maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution.
- Whether Sections 5A and 5B of the Cinematograph Act can be invoked for adjudicating private disputes relating to copyright infringement.
- Whether writ jurisdiction can be exercised in the absence of any challenge to statutory action under the Cinematograph Act.
Key Legal Principles In The Case
| Legal Issue | Court’s Observation |
|---|---|
| Copyright Infringement | Requires detailed evidence and factual examination. |
| CBFC Powers | Limited to certification standards under the Cinematograph Act. |
| Writ Jurisdiction | Cannot ordinarily decide private proprietary disputes. |
| Film Certification Challenge | Must relate to statutory violations, not private copyright claims. |
| Article 226 Scope | Primarily for public law remedies and statutory review. |
Conclusion
The Karnataka High Court in Mr Santosh Kumar R.S. vs Mr Aditya Dhar reaffirmed the distinction between public law remedies and private copyright disputes.
The judgement clarifies that allegations of plagiarism, script theft, and copyright infringement require adjudication through appropriate civil proceedings involving evidence and trial, rather than through writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.
The Court further emphasised that the CBFC’s statutory role under Sections 5A and 5B of the Cinematograph Act, 1952, is confined to certification standards relating to decency, morality, sovereignty, and public order and does not extend to determining ownership of creative works.
The ruling therefore serves as an important precedent limiting attempts to challenge film certification on grounds of private copyright disputes.
Reasoning And Analysis Of The Judge
The court emphasised that the petitioner’s grievance fundamentally concerned copyright infringement and plagiarism. Such allegations, according to the court, necessarily involve detailed factual inquiry, including comparison of scripts, proof of authorship, proof of access, and proof of substantial similarity between the competing works. The Court observed that such adjudication requires appreciation of oral and documentary evidence and may even require expert examination.
In this context, the Court relied heavily upon the landmark Supreme Court judgement in R.G. Anand vs M/s Delux Films and Others reported in (1978) 4 SCC 118. The Supreme Court in R.G. Anand had authoritatively laid down principles governing copyright infringement in dramatic and cinematographic works. The Karnataka High Court reproduced and discussed paragraphs 45 and 46 of the Supreme Court judgement in detail.
Copyright Principles Under R.G. Anand
The Supreme Court in R.G. Anand held that there can be no copyright in an idea, theme, plot, or historical fact. Copyright protection extends only to the form, manner, arrangement, and expression of the idea. The Supreme Court explained that where two creators work on the same subject matter, similarities may naturally arise. However, infringement occurs only when the defendant’s work is a substantial and material imitation of the plaintiff’s original expression.
The Karnataka High Court highlighted the Supreme Court’s observation that one of the safest tests for determining copyright infringement is whether an ordinary viewer gets an unmistakable impression that the later work appears to be a copy of the original. The High Court stressed that such determination cannot be made merely on allegations or superficial similarities and requires a full evidentiary trial.
The Court further noted that the Supreme Court in R.G. Anand recognised the inherent complexity of film-related copyright disputes because films involve wider treatment, broader narratives, and additional creative elements. Therefore, proving piracy in cinematographic works becomes even more fact-intensive.
Scope Of Writ Jurisdiction Under Article 226
After discussing copyright principles, the court turned to the scope of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. The Court relied upon the Supreme Court judgement in Whirlpool Corporation vs Registrar of Trademarks reported in 8 SCC 1 (1998).
The Supreme Court in Whirlpool Corporation held that although High Courts possess broad powers under Article 226, writ jurisdiction is generally not exercised where an effective alternative remedy exists unless exceptional circumstances are shown, such as the following:
- Violation of natural justice
- Lack of jurisdiction
- Challenge to vires of legislation
The Karnataka High Court applied these principles and held that no exceptional circumstance existed in the present case. The petitioner’s grievance was essentially a civil dispute relating to alleged infringement of copyright. Such disputes are specifically governed by remedies available under the Copyright Act, 1957, through civil suits for injunction and damages.
Analysis Of The Cinematograph Act, 1952
The court then analysed Sections 3, 5, 5A, and 5B of the Cinematograph Act, 1952.
| Section | Provision Explained By The Court |
|---|---|
| Section 3 | Provides for constitution of the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) |
| Section 5 | Concerns advisory panels assisting the Board |
| Section 5A | Deals with grant or refusal of certification |
| Section 5B | Lays down principles for certification including sovereignty, morality, decency, public order, and related concerns |
The courtCourt returned the finding that the CBFC functions as a statutory regulatory body tasked with evaluating whether films comply with censorship and certification standards. The Court observed that the Board’s role is essentially regulatory and not adjudicatory regarding private proprietary disputes.
involving the following:The court clarified that challenges to CBFC certification may arise in cases involving:
- Violation of statutory guidelines
- Procedural irregularity
- Obscenity
- Defamation
- Public morality
- Infringement of constitutional rights
board.However, allegations of plagiarism or script theft fall outside the statutory mandate of the Board.
The judgement specifically held that Section 5A of the Cinematograph Act does not confer judicial or quasi-judicial power upon the Board to adjudicate title or ownership of a screenplay or script. According to the Court, the certification process acts as a “safety and morality filter” and not as a mechanism for deciding copyright disputes.
Distinction From Earlier Precedents
The petitioner had relied upon the Supreme Court decision in Bobby Art International vs Om Pal Singh Hoon, reported in AIR 1996 SC 1846. However, the court distinguished that decision by observing that Bobby Art International dealt with obscenity, censorship, and freedom of expression issues under the Cinematograph Act rather than copyright infringement.
The petitioner had also relied upon N.P. Amruthesh vs State of Karnataka, reported in ILR 1998 KAR 2885. The Karnataka High Court observed that the dispute in N.P. Amruthesh related to allegations that the content of the film violated constitutional values and public morality under the Cinematograph Act, and therefore that precedent had no application to a copyright dispute between private parties.
The court repeatedly emphasised that claims involving proof of originality, access, and substantial similarity require appreciation of evidence and therefore squarely fall within the jurisdiction of civil courts. It also observed that the petitioner had failed to show any statutory illegality in the process adopted by the CBFC while granting certification to the film.
Final Decision Of The Court
The Karnataka High Court dismissed the writ petition and declined to interfere with the certification granted to the film “Dhurandhar-2”.
The court held that allegations of plagiarism and copyright infringement cannot ordinarily be adjudicated in writ proceedings under Article 226 because such disputes involve complex factual questions requiring trial and evidence.
The Court further held that the CBFC has no statutory obligation under Sections 5A or 5B of the Cinematograph Act to investigate allegations of script theft before granting certification. The board’s role is confined to examining whether the film violates statutory standards relating to morality, decency, public order, and similar concerns.
While dismissing the writ petition, the Court granted liberty to the petitioner to pursue appropriate remedies before a competent civil forum under the Copyright Act, 1957.
Point Of Law Settled In The Case
The judgement settles an important legal principle that copyright infringement and plagiarism disputes involving films cannot ordinarily be converted into challenges against CBFC certification through writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.
The decision clarifies that the CBFC’s statutory role under Sections 5A and 5B of the Cinematograph Act, 1952, is limited to regulation and certification based on public law considerations such as morality, decency, public order, sovereignty, and related concerns.
The judgement further reinforces that disputes involving originality of scripts, access, copying, and substantial similarity are matters requiring detailed factual adjudication and must be resolved through civil proceedings under the Copyright Act, 1957, rather than through constitutional writ remedies.
Case Details
| Particulars | Details |
|---|---|
| Case Title | Mr Santosh Kumar R.S Vs Mr Aditya Dhar |
| Date Of Order | 22 April 2026 |
| Case Number | Writ Petition No. 10911/2026 (C) |
| Court | High Court of Karnataka |
| Honourable Judge | Justice K.S. Hemalekha |
