[BREAKING] Gangubai Kathiawadi: Supreme Court dismisses plea seeking injunction on release

The Supreme Court on Thursday dismissed the petition seeking an injunction on the release of Alia-Bhatt starrer Gangubai Kathiawadi, filed by a person who claimed to be the adopted son of Kathiawadi on whom the film is based [Babuji Rawji Shah vs S Hussain Zaidi]..A Bench of Justices Indira Banerjee and JK Maheshwari was considering an appeal filed against the order of the Bombay High Court that continued the stay on summons issued by a Mumbai court in a criminal defamation complaint against the producers of Gangubai Kathiawadi, actress Alia Bhatt, and authors S Hussain Zaidi and Jane Borges, who wrote the book on which the film is based..The bench has held that "prima facie, it appears that the movie is an artistic expression within the parameters of law."."The contention of the petitioner is that the story of Gangubai sought to be depicted is untrue, is vague and devoid of material particulars. In any case, whether the story is true or incorrect would have to be decided by the Court upon examination of the evidence. The film certificate issued by the CBFC prima facie shows that the film is not defamatory. Prima facie, it appears that the movie is an artistic expression within the parameters of law," the order said. .Furthermore, the Court held that there are no materials disclosed or even pleadings to show, prima facie, that the petitioner was a family member or a near relative of Gangubai..Appearing for the filmmakers, Senior Advocate Aryama Sundaram said that the Court was dealing with a case where the film has not been seen as yet. "Censor certificate has been given. So for a person to say that legal right should not be exercised, the person has to show a strong reason," he said.Sundaram also called into question the proof that the petitioner was actually Gangubai's adopted son."Not even a whisper of proof of the same apart from ration card," he argued.On the argument of the petitioner that the film casts the area of Kamathipura (in Mumbai) in bad light, the Senior Advocate said,"We don't consider it shameworthy if a woman rises above from this background and does something for the society, it is not to be ashamed of."He also refuted the defamation claims, saying that nothing prima facie has been shown to the Court to prove the same. "I am not defending the book Mafia Queens in any way. This book is there since 11 years. This person who claims to be a son is not aware of this and now when film is coming out he becomes aware of it," he said..Sundaram next dealt with the claim of the petitioners that the names of victims of sexual assault could not be published."This is not an ongoing trial and she is not a victim. She is someone who has died 42 years ago. She is not a victim. Every house has a picture of her."At this point said, a teary-eyed Justice Banerjee said that she had respect for women who are pushed into prostitution. Recounting her days as head of the West Bengal Legal Services Authority and Chair of the Calcutta High Court Legal Aid Committee, she said,"I had once came across a trafficked woman and I still get goosebumps. A 14-year-old girl who could not manage meals was with an aunt who could not feed her. Then she was called to Mumbai for a job in a restaurant. She agreed to go to Mumbai to eat four square meals. Clients wanted to have unprotected sex with her.One of the clients took pity on her and then she was taken to a journalist and sent to an NGO. She contracted HIV too. She caught my hand and said. 'What wrong did I do?' This is the plight of a lot of people there. I don't look down upon any one...""But I did not reveal the name of the victim or the village name," she added.Sundaram then contended,"Your Ladyship's point is correct, but this story is about how a lady beat the odds and this is a motivating story. Gangubai statue is there in Kamathipura and she is treated as a Devta/Devi there.".Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi backed the submissions made by Sundaram."The book is of 2011 and is not derogatory at all. The character Gangubai has been glorified as to how she rose from a background and became an activist and how she was caught in such a situation and how she rose thereon," Rohatgi argued.After arguing that a defamation suit abates with the person's death, Rohatgi questioned,"Why is there a gap of 9 months is challenging the Bombay High Court judgment? Reason will be Covid, but we all are working in Covid. This plea comes before a day before the release of the film. Satellite and third party rights have been granted."He went on to cite the Padmaavat case, in which the Supreme Court had refused to ban the film. "Injunction is an equitable relief and cannot be granted here. There are 2,000 theatres which will run this. Producer, actor, theatre, distributor all their rights run along with this and depend on the movie theatre tickets," Rohatgi said concluding his arguments..Senior Advocate Siddhartha Dave appearing for Bhansali productions, submitted that the petitioners did not satisfy the court on the grounds of exception to defamation and that the plea ought to be dismissed. .Counsel for the petitioner, Advocate Rakesh Singh, argued that defamation not only affects the person, but family members as well. When the Court asked him to prove how the movie defamed Gangubai, Singh said,"They say movie is on book and if the book is defamatory then movie is defamatory...the book says that she was having an affair and then she was pushed into a brothel in Kamathipura. The promo also depicts this...dialogue in movie is also defamatory to the victim."Justice Maheshwari then asked Singh for proof that his client was adopted by Gangubai. On questioning the counsel, the Court found that there was no official adoption of the petitioner..TMT Law Practice's Naomi Chandra and Sanya Dua along with DSK Legal briefed Senior Counsels appearing for Sanjay Leela Bhansali and Bhansali Productions through a team headed by Managing Partner Anand Desai and Partners Chandrima Mitra, Parag Khandhar and Samir Malik.The petitioner was represented through Advocates Rakesh Singh, Arun Kumar Sinha and Sumit Sinha. Naik Naik & Co. represented author S Hussain Zaidi..On Wednesday, the Court had asked the producers of the film whether it would be possible to change the title of the movie, in light of the several cases pending before courts seeking to halt its release scheduled for Friday, February 25.The respondents argued that with a day to go before the movie is released, a name change "would not be possible.".[BREAKING] Gangubai Kathiawadi: "Is it possible to change title:" Supreme Court asks.The suit filed by Gangubai's adopted son had sought an injunction against Bhansali Productions from producing, directing or airing the promo of any film based on said novel, including Alia Bhatt-starter Gangubai Kathiawadi.It was the contention of the petitioner that the balance of convenience in a defamation suit must always be in favour of the defamed person.Moreover, it was stated that the Bombay City Civil Court was not justified in dismissing the suit under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC merely by placing reliance on two judgments of the Madras High Court which should only have a persuasive value on the Court..Meanwhile, the Bombay High Court on Wednesday dismissed two petitions seeking to remove references to the area in which the film is set..[Read Order]