From Our Bureau
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Thursday dismissed a plea seeking an injunction against Bhansali Productions from releasing the biopic of Gangubai Kathiawadi, allowing its screening across the country on Friday.
The plea was filed by Gangubai’s adopted son, Babuji Rawji Shah, against the Bombay High Court order.
A bench comprising Justices Indira Banerjee and J.K. Maheshwari, after a detailed hearing in the matter, junked the plea to stop its release.
On Wednesday, the bench queried, “Is changing the title possible?” However, the petitioner’s counsel insisted on an interim stay on the release of the movie and the respondent’s counsel argued that name change, just a day before the release, would not be possible.
During the hearing on Thursday, the filmmaker’s counsel pressed that the movie has been promoted for more than seven months, and it is all over social media. A battery of senior advocates argued that the movie is not derogatory at all, rather it glorifies Gangubai despite she running a brothel in Mumbai’s redlight area of Kamathipura and pointed out that there is also a statue in her name.
In his appeal, Ganguvai’s adopted son the Hindi movie as well as the novel on which it was based tarnished his image aswell as his deceased mother’s image and other family members, asserting that it was a case of sheer defamation.
The top court, however, rejected the claim of criminal defamation complaint against Alia Bhatt, who played the role of Gangubai as well as producers of the film and authors S Hussain Zaidi, who wrote the novel on Gangubai’s life.
In real life, Gangubai hailed from Kathiawad in Gujarat. She had fled to Mumbai with her lover working in her father’s firm when she was just 16 with a dream to become an actress in Bollywood, but the lover sold her to a Mumbai brothel in Rs 500 and she rose to run her own “kotha” (brothel) in the Kamathipura area of the city as a mafia queen, with many notorious criminals as her customers. She died in Mumbai in 2008 at the age of 68.
She was a changed person in her late age, doing a lot of work for the sex workers and looking after many orphans. Actress Alia Bhatt is playing her role in the biopic.
Petitioner Babuji Shah objected to the portrayal of his mother as a prostitute and a lady don in the movie based on a novel titled “The Mafia Queens of Mumbai” published in 2011.
While reserving a reasoned order to follow later, the Supreme Court held that Shah failed to establish any prima facie case of being the adopted son of Gangubai nor did he show any intention to defame the protagonist when the film claimed to glorify her life.
Senior advocates Mukul Rohatgi, C A Sundaram and Siddhrth Dave asserted on behalf of the filmmaker that the petitioner failed to show that he was the adopted son of the lady portrayed in the film to secure a stay on its screening. They argued that he also could not show that the movie intends to defame the person shown in the film.
They said a person’s right to reputation is lost with the death of that person, claiming that Gangubai had died 42 years and not in 2008 as claimed. Rohatgi cited Section 306 of the Succession Act to illustrate this point and argued that the petitioner had instituted a suit in this regard before the trial court in Mumbai which dismissed it in February last year.
Sundaram took the top court through similar cases in the past where the SC refused to stall the release of the movie Bandit Queen that showed the life of ‘bandit queen’ Phoolan Devi.
He said that the lives of public figures are to be commented upon, citing the various movies and literary works on the life of Mahatma Gandhi. He also cited the example of MS Subbalakshmi, a renowned singer decorated with Bharat Ratna, to make his point.
“If one is to make a movie on the life of MS Subbalakshmi, will they not show that she once was a devadasi? In this movie too, we are not showing her (Gangubai) as a victim, but it is a motivating story of a dignified woman who rose from that level and achieved so much. There is a statue in her name. Our movie glorifies her for what she did.”
The filmmakers argued that the petitioner made no efforts to get the plea heard even as the petition was filed in the apex court in September last year. By seeking a stay on the eve of the film’s release, Rohatgi said the court has to be mindful of the legal rights worth crores that have been created by the sale of media rights, distribution rights, publicity, including the sale of movie tickets across 4,000 theatres worldwide.
The petitioner had approached the top court appealing against a decision by the Bombay high court on July 30 which refused to pass an interim order to stay the release of the movie. He had approached the high court against the dismissal of his suit.
With the appeal still pending before the high court, Shah had approached the top court to claim interim directions to put the movie release on hold, claiming that his mother was a social activist and showing her in bad light would cause ignominy for his family.
The petitioner produced a ration card in support of his claim to be her son. When the SC bench asked whether there was any legal deed of adoption or a school leaving certificate to establish his claim as a son, he failed to produce any other proof.
“If you are seeking an injunction, you have to make out a prima facie case. To prove it at a later stage is a different thing,” the bench concluded.
