The Delhi High Court on Wednesday recorded an undertaking by filmmaker Rajeev Rai that he will not speak to the media on the Dhurandhar 2 song dispute during the pendency of mediation proceedings.
Justice Tushar Rao Gedela noted that Rai had made multiple public statements on the merits of the case and the court proceedings even after the matter was referred to mediation.
The Court emphasised that once a litigant invokes the judicial process, restraint is expected in public commentary on issues that are sub judice.
Senior Advocate Swathi Sukumar, appearing for Rai, stated that her client would refrain from speaking on the subject matter during mediation.
Recording the undertaking, the Court indicated that such restraint was necessary to ensure that the mediation process is not derailed and to avoid escalation of the dispute outside court.
The Court also made it clear that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case at this stage and that the undertaking would continue till the next date of hearing, when the matter is to be considered further.
The dispute itself concerns allegations by Trimurti Films that the song Rang De Lal (Oye Oye) in Dhurandhar 2 uses the musical composition of Tirchi Topiwala from the 1989 film Tridev without authorisation. The defendants have denied the allegations and opposed any interim relief.
The case was referred to mediation last week.
Today's proceedings arose from an application moved by Super Cassettes alleging that Rai had given a series of interviews to the media after agreeing to mediation, including remarks on how the matter was handled in court and on the merits of the dispute.
Senior Advocate Akhil Sibal, appearing for the company, contended that such statements were prejudicial and were causing damage to the film, which is currently running in theatres.
“They are calling us thieves while the very issue is before this Court for consideration,” he submitted.
He submitted that a litigant cannot simultaneously pursue remedies before the Court while making public allegations and commentary on the dispute. He contended that the statements included imputations against the opposing parties and amounted to conducting a parallel narrative in the media on a matter that is pending adjudication.
Sukumar submitted that the statements were made in anguish and that Rai remained committed to mediation.
“They get praise every day for being a box office hit. Equally, two people criticising them is not going to bring down heavens,” she argued, adding that the defendants should be able to take criticism.
She further submitted that Rai was willing to voluntarily refrain from making further comments during mediation in order to facilitate a resolution, while opposing any blanket restraint on speech.
The Court observed that while parties are free to hold opinions, imputations and commentary on the dispute during the pendency of proceedings were not appropriate. It noted that litigants must either trust the court process or pursue their remedies elsewhere, but cannot engage in parallel public commentary that could affect the proceedings.
Sukumar was briefed by Advocate Arunadhri Iyer.
Sibal was briefed by a team from Ira Law comprising Partners Aditya Gupta, Asavari Jain and Geethanjali Vishwanathan, with Advocate Shivash Tiwari.
Advocate Harsh Kaushik also appeared for Super Cassettes
Aditya Dhar's production house B62 was represented by a team from DSK legal led by its partner Parag Khandhar and Advocates Chandrima Mitra, Anaheeta Verma, Krishan Kumar and Diva Chanchani.
Advocates Vishesh Issar, Rahul Dhawan, Apoorv Bansal and Vaishali Singh from Lex Chambers appeared for Jio Studios, the producer.