Film-Maker Sujoy Ghosh Approaches Supreme Court To Quash ‘ Kahani 2 ‘ Case

By Tanveer Zaidi (Actor–Author–Educationist)

In a significant development, the Supreme Court of India, on July 2, issued a formal notice in response to a petition filed by noted filmmaker and writer-director Sujoy Ghosh, who sought the quashing of a criminal case initiated against him under Section 63 of the Copyright Act, 1957.

 

 

The case concerns the allegation that his critically acclaimed film Kahaani 2 was based on a script that was allegedly used without consent.

The matter was taken up by a bench comprising Justice P.S. Narasimha and Justice R. Mahadevan, who, while issuing the notice to both the State of Jharkhand and the original complainant, also exempted Ghosh from making a personal appearance before the concerned magistrate during the pendency of the proceedings.

This came as a partial relief to the director.

The legal petition, filed as a Special Leave Petition (SLP) before the apex court, challenged the ruling of the Jharkhand High Court, which had earlier dismissed Ghosh’s plea under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC).

Through this plea, Ghosh had sought the quashing of the criminal complaint, maintaining that the case lacked merit and was based on fabricated claims.

The complaint in question was originally filed by Umesh Prasad Mehta before the Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM), Hazaribagh. Mehta alleged that the script of Kahaani 2, which was released in December 2016 as a thematic sequel to Ghosh’s successful thriller Kahaani, had unlawfully copied substantial parts of his script, titled Sabak.

According to Mehta, he had shared the Sabak script with Sujoy Ghosh in June 2015 under the pretext of seeking a recommendation letter for its registration with a recognized film industry body.

Mehta claimed that his original work was misused and adapted without consent or credit in Kahaani 2, thereby constituting a clear case of copyright infringement under the provisions of the Act.

Sujoy Ghosh, however, categorically denied these serious accusations.

He asserted that he began drafting the script for Kahaani 2 as early as November 2012, and the completed version of his script had been officially registered with the Screen Writers Association (SWA) in December 2013, well before the alleged interaction with the complainant or the registration of the latter’s script.

Ghosh also denied ever meeting Mehta or receiving any script from him at any point in time.

Despite these assertions, the Jharkhand High Court refused to intervene and dismiss the complaint, reasoning that the factual claims and counterclaims needed to be examined in the course of a criminal trial, and not at the stage of preliminary hearings.

The High Court emphasized that the determination of the script’s originality and the extent of alleged copying could only be evaluated through a proper evidentiary process.

Before the Supreme Court, Ghosh’s legal team contended that the summoning order issued by the magistrate was done in a mechanical and perfunctory manner, without any application of judicial mind.

They argued that the magistrate had not examined or compared the two scripts to even form a basic prima facie opinion about the similarity between the works—a fundamental step in any copyright violation claim.

Further, they pointed out that the complainant had not submitted a copy of the Kahaani 2 script at the time of filing the case, making it virtually impossible for the court to evaluate the allegation of infringement.

Another major plank of Ghosh’s argument before the apex court was that the registration of the Kahaani 2 script took place nearly two years before the registration of Sabak. This chronological discrepancy, he claimed, rendered the copyright infringement allegation completely baseless and implausible.

Additionally, Ghosh raised serious objections regarding the territorial jurisdiction of the case, asserting that all activities related to the conceptualization, writing, production, and release of Kahaani 2 took place in Mumbai, not in Hazaribagh, where the complaint was filed.

Therefore, he argued, the complaint was not legally maintainable in the Jharkhand jurisdiction.

Ghosh’s counsel further submitted that the High Court erred in not invoking its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC to quash a frivolous and vexatious complaint, which, according to them, was founded on patently absurd and factually untenable allegations.

They contended that the case lacked any semblance of legal merit and had been filed merely to harass and malign the reputation of a respected filmmaker.

In light of these arguments, the Supreme Court decided to entertain the matter and issued notice to the respondents for their reply.

The case now awaits further proceedings, which will determine whether the criminal complaint against Sujoy Ghosh stands on legally sustainable grounds or merits dismissal at this preliminary stage.