The Karnataka High Court on Tuesday questioned an argument by actor Darshan Srinivas' counsel that the release of the Kannada film BOSS could affect the fairness of a pending criminal trial against him [Darshan Srinivas Vs Siri Productions].
Justice Pradeep Singh Yerur was hearing a plea filed by Darshan Srinivas and his wife Vijayalakshmi Darshan (appellants) seeking to restore an interim injunction against the film's release.
The appellants have argued that the film closely mirrors the Renukaswamy murder case in which Darshan is an accused, and that its release could affect his right to a fair trial.
In yesterday's hearing of the matter, Darshan's counsel submitted that the movie depicts a trial, the recording of evidence, and the pronouncement of a judgment, after which the protagonist is acquitted and goes on to become an MLA.
The counsel suggested that the film could influence the ongoing trial. He argued that it could influence the witnesses, pointing out that the trial was proceeding on a day-to-day basis and was being conducted four days a week.
The lawyer added that an accused has a fundamental right not only to a fair trial but also to receive a 'cool-minded verdict.'
The Bench, however, questioned whether this submission implied that judges could be swayed by movies.
"'Cool-minded verdict from the court.' You mean to say the judges are hot-headed? Get influenced by the movie? I don't know how many of them watch it also," Justice Yerur remarked.
The counsel clarified that his concern was that witnesses could be influenced by the film.
The appellants also argued that the film opens with the disclaimer "Based on real events" and carries the tagline "Satyameva Jayate," which reinforces the connection with the pending criminal case.
The appellants' counsel further argued that the film also maligned Darshan's wife by portraying the protagonist's wife as 'Lakshmi,' while Darshan's wife is named Vijayalakshmi. He added that the protagonist was also shown as having a girlfriend with a similar name, terming it ridicuolous.
The Court eventually agreed to hear the matter further and adjourned till July 3.
Notably, the film's producer had earlier undertaken not to release the film for now. The appellants' counsel yesterday urged the Court to issue directions so that this undertaking continues. The Court, however, declined to pass on an order on this.
"No need of recording it. I am not passing any order. They have said that they will not (release the film)," the judge said.
Senior Advocate Vivek Subbareddy appeared for respondents (filmmakers).