Takedown of ‘Sarke Chunar Teri Sarke’ Amid Legal Complaints and NHRC Notice
The promotional campaign for KD: The Devil encountered a setback after the makers removed the song ‘Sarke Chunar Teri Sarke’ and its Kannada version ‘Sarse Ninna Seraga Sarse’ from YouTube and other streaming platforms. The takedown followed legal complaints and public criticism alleging that the song contained obscene and sexually suggestive content. In a subsequent development, the National Human Rights Commission issued a notice in relation to the matter.
The controversy arose after a complaint was filed by Vineet Jindal before the Delhi Police cyber cell seeking action against persons associated with the song, including Rageeb Alam, Prem, Arjun Janya, and Mangli. It was alleged that the content may attract liability under Section 294 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, along with relevant provisions of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act and the Information Technology Act, 2000. A complaint was also filed before the Central Board of Film Certification. Following this, the song was made unavailable on YouTube, where it had been accessible until March 16, 2026, and no official response has been issued by the makers to date.
You can read more about it here.
Delhi High Court Directs Implementation of Accessibility Measures in Films
While considering a petition concerning the absence of accessibility features for persons with disabilities, the Delhi High Court directed the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology, and the Central Board of Film Certification to implement specified suggestions relating to such features. The petition sought directions to ensure that the film Pushpa 2: The Rule is released with accessibility features, including audio description and same-language closed captioning or Indian Sign Language, across theatres, OTT platforms, and other media formats, in line with the accessibility guidelines issued on March 15, 2024.
The Single Bench of Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav directed that certain suggestions be implemented by the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting and the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology, while the Central Board of Film Certification was directed to consider the remaining suggestions. The petitioner, appearing in person, highlighted the absence of any independent mechanism enabling persons with disabilities to identify films offering such features, thereby affecting their ability to make informed viewing choices. The Court took note of suggested measures including disclosure of accessibility features prior to ticket booking, access to such features through relevant applications, availability of technical support details, and a mechanism to ensure accessibility-compliant platforms. The matter has been listed for further consideration on May 7, 2026.
You can read more about it here.
Supreme Court Quashes Copyright Case Against Sujoy Ghosh
The Supreme Court of India quashed the criminal proceedings and summoning orders issued against Sujoy Ghosh in relation to alleged copyright infringement concerning the film Kahaani 2: Durga Rani Singh. The Bench comprising Justice P. S. Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe set aside the orders of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh, and the Jharkhand High Court, and quashed the pending complaint case. The matter arose from a Special Leave Petition challenging the High Court’s refusal to interfere with the criminal proceedings.
The complaint had been filed by Umesh Prasad Mehta alleging that the film’s script was copied from his work titled “Sabak,” which he claimed to have shared with Ghosh in 2015 for a recommendation related to copyright registration. The Magistrate had taken cognizance under Section 63 of the Copyright Act and issued summons, which the High Court declined to quash, observing that the allegations disclosed a prima facie case and that such issues ought to be tested at trial. Ghosh had challenged the proceedings as baseless and invoked the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court; however, the Supreme Court set aside the summoning order and the criminal proceedings in entirety, thereby allowing the petition.
You can read more about it here.
Case Title: Sujoy Ghosh v. State of Jharkhand and Anr.
Citation: Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 9452/2025
Movie Can Be Flop Too, No Cheating Offence Just Because Film Investment Didn’t Return Profit: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court of India quashed criminal proceedings under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code against V. Ganesan, holding that just because a movie failed to generate profit does not, by itself, establish dishonest intention from the inception. The Bench comprising Justice P. S. Narasimha and Justice Manoj Misra set aside the order of the Madras High Court to the extent it declined to quash proceedings under Section 420 IPC, and held that the dispute disclosed only a civil cause of action.
The Court noted that the complainant had invested in a film project in expectation of profit-sharing, the film was completed and released, and there were no allegations of profits being generated. The Court observed that film production is a high-risk activity and that an agreement to share profits inherently involves the risk of no returns. It further held that dishonour of post-dated cheques, issued towards repayment of an existing obligation, does not by itself amount to cheating, though it may attract separate remedies. Accordingly, the Court concluded that the allegations did not disclose dishonest intention from the outset and quashed the criminal proceedings.
You can read more about it here.
Case Title: V. Ganesan v. State Rep. by the Sub Inspector of Police and Another
Citation: 2026 INSC 265
Kerala High Court Hears Challenge to Certification of ‘The Kerala Story 2’
The producer of The Kerala Story 2: Goes Beyond objected to a plea before the Kerala High Court challenging the certification granted to the film on the ground of alleged defamation of the State. During the hearing, the Court observed that the issue raised by the petitioners was “probably genuine” and orally indicated that the rights in the film ought not to be released until the matter is heard further.
In response, the producer’s counsel submitted that the pleas are in the nature of public interest and that the petitioners do not have any individual grievance. It was argued that the challenge is based on an assertion that the dignity of the petitioners is affected due to the alleged impact on the reputation of Kerala, and that such a claim is not sustainable as the State does not possess an independent dignity separate from that of the country. The matter was adjourned and is scheduled to be heard further.
You can read more about it here.
Parliament Debate on ‘KD: The Devil’ Song Amid Obscenity Row
The controversy surrounding the song ‘Sarke Chunar Teri Sarke’ from KD: The Devil was raised in Parliament, with Anand Bhadoria highlighting concerns over vulgar content on OTT platforms and social media. In response, Ashwini Vaishnaw stated that a ban had already been imposed on the song and reiterated that freedom of speech is subject to reasonable restrictions in line with societal and cultural considerations. The controversy relates to the Kannada track ‘Sarse Ninna Serage Sarse’, written by Prem, who issued an apology following public backlash.
The Hindi version, written by Abdul Rageem, gained attention after its release featuring Sanjay Dutt and Nora Fatehi, with allegations that the lyrics were sexually suggestive. The Karnataka State Commission for Women also sought action, raising concerns that such content may encourage eve-teasing and impact women adversely. It urged the Karnataka Film Chamber of Commerce to ensure that objectionable content is avoided, and requested the Central Board of Film Certification to require deletion or modification of such portions. The CBFC, however, clarified that it had not received any application for certification of the song and that digital content falls outside its regulatory scope, directing queries to the platform and the makers.
You can read more about it here.
Bengaluru Court Grants Injunction to Protect ‘Ustad Bhagath Singh’
Ahead of the theatrical release of Ustad Bhagath Singh, producer Mythri Movie Makers obtained an ex parte temporary injunction from the Bengaluru City Civil and Sessions Court restraining the circulation of allegedly false, malicious, defamatory, or derogatory content relating to the film across digital and media platforms. The order, passed in a suit against various intermediaries including YouTube LLC, Big Tree Entertainment Pvt Ltd, X Corp., Google India Private Limited, IMDb.com Inc., and Meta Platforms Inc., directs them to refrain from publishing or sharing such content until the next hearing, which is scheduled for April 27, 2026.
You can read more about it here.
Delhi High Court Seeks Clarity in Sonakshi Sinha’s Personality Rights Suit
The Delhi High Court directed Sonakshi Sinha to file a clear, defendant-wise table of allegedly infringing URLs in her suit against AI-based platforms for misuse of her personality rights, noting lack of clarity in the material placed on record. Justice Jyoti Singh, while hearing the interim application, also permitted filing of sensitive material in a sealed cover and indicated that an interim order for protection of the actor’s personality rights would be passed, while limiting reliefs to legally recognised measures and acknowledging the technical role of intermediaries such as domain registrars.
You can read more about it here.
Gautam Gambhir Moves Delhi High Court Over AI Deepfakes and Personality Rights
Gautam Gambhir has instituted a civil suit before the Delhi High Court seeking protection of his personality and publicity rights against alleged digital impersonation, AI-generated deepfakes, and unauthorised commercial exploitation. The suit highlights a surge in fabricated content across social media platforms, where AI tools such as face-swapping and voice-cloning were used to create videos falsely depicting him making statements, including a purported resignation announcement and comments on senior cricketers, which received significant online traction.
The suit further raises concerns over unauthorised commercial use of his name and likeness, including sale of merchandise on e-commerce platforms without consent. It is alleged that such activities form part of a coordinated misuse of his identity, prompting the request for comprehensive legal protection and appropriate directions against the concerned platforms and entities involved.
You can read more about it here.
Election Commission to Decide Fate of ‘Jana Nayagan’ Amid Model Code of Conduct
The release of Jana Nayagan has encountered a fresh hurdle, with the Election Commission of India examining whether the film can be cleared during the operation of the Model Code of Conduct. The issue arises as Vijay, who plays the lead, is also the head of a political party contesting the upcoming Tamil Nadu Assembly elections. The Commission has termed the matter a “new situation” and is considering whether a film featuring an active political figure requires scrutiny during the election period.
The film, which has already faced certification delays before the Central Board of Film Certification, was referred to a revising committee after objections to certain scenes. With the Model Code of Conduct in force until completion of the election process, the matter now lies at the intersection of film certification and election law, and the final clearance is likely to depend on the Election Commission’s decision, making a pre-election release uncertain.
You can read more about it here.
Delhi High Court Restrains Transfer of Broadcast Rights in Legends League Dispute
The Delhi High Court restrained Absolute Legends Sports Private Limited from creating or transferring any third-party rights in relation to the Legends League Cricket Master T20 tournament, in a dispute with JioStar India Pvt. Ltd.. The Court, while hearing a petition under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, held that permitting such transfer would defeat the subject matter of the dispute, and specifically restrained any proposed transfer of rights to Bluegod Entertainment Limited pending resolution of the dispute.
The order was passed by Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar, who observed that interim protection was necessary to safeguard JioStar’s claims arising from a prior agreement for broadcast and commercial exploitation of the tournament. JioStar has also sought further directions to restrain broadcasting of the tournament on television and digital platforms, along with deposit of certain amounts and creation of an escrow mechanism for revenues, which remain to be considered.
You can read more about it here.
Madras High Court Grants Injunction Against Unauthorised Broadcast of ‘Jab Khuli Kitab’
The Madras High Court granted an ad-interim injunction restraining unauthorised broadcasting of the film Jab Khuli Kitab, holding that preventive measures are necessary to avoid irreparable harm to copyright owners. Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy restrained multiple internet service providers and cable operators, while directing the plaintiff, Applause Entertainment Private Limited, to provide indemnity considering the wide scope of the relief, and ordered that the interim protection will remain in force until April 6, 2026.
You can read more about it here.
Madras High Court Clarifies Limited Copyright Rights in ‘Roja’ Dispute
The Madras High Court dismissed appeals filed by Lahari Recording Company in a copyright dispute concerning the Telugu dubbed version of Roja, holding that Lahari did not possess satellite broadcasting rights and could not restrain its telecast. The Division Bench of Justice C. V. Karthikeyan and Justice K. Kumaresh Babu observed that Lahari’s rights were limited to dubbing and specified modes of exploitation under its agreement with Kavithalayaa Productions, and could not be expanded to include satellite rights.
The Court further held that copyright in films comprises distinct rights, such as theatrical and satellite broadcasting rights, which must be separately assigned. It noted that Lahari had exceeded its contractual rights by granting video cassette rights to a third party and, in the absence of satellite rights, could not claim infringement or damages against telecast by Jain Television. Accordingly, the Court concluded that Lahari was not entitled to any injunction or compensation, reinforcing that copyright claims are strictly confined to the rights expressly granted under an agreement.
You can read more about it here.
Case Title: Lahari Recording Co. P. Ltd. v. Jain Television & Ors. (Mala Publicity Service P Ltd)
Citation: 2026: MHC: 942.