The Delhi High Court has directed former India cricket captain Sourav Ganguly to specify the exact content in the proposed film 'Doosra' that he believes violates his rights, sharpening a dispute that sits at the intersection of celebrity identity, creative freedom and commercial filmmaking.
The court's intervention came after the makers of the film opposed Ganguly's plea, arguing that the project was not a biographical work and that the cricketer was only one of several sources of inspiration. Their position effectively framed the matter as a question of artistic expression rather than unauthorised appropriation, a distinction that courts in India have increasingly been asked to examine as films, web series and advertisements draw from the lives of well-known public figures.
Core Legal Question
At the centre of the case is a familiar but difficult issue: when does inspiration become infringement? Ganguly's objection suggests concern that the film may be using his persona, achievements or public image without permission. The filmmakers, however, appear to be arguing that 'Doosra' is not a direct depiction of his life and therefore does not require the same level of consent or endorsement that a biopic might.
By asking Ganguly to identify the allegedly infringing material with precision, the court has signalled that broad claims of resemblance may not be enough on their own. In disputes involving personality rights or passing off, courts often look for specific evidence that a person's identity has been commercially exploited in a way that could mislead audiences or unfairly trade on reputation. The order suggests that the bench wants the controversy narrowed to concrete scenes, references or promotional elements rather than general apprehension about the film's theme.
For the film industry, that distinction matters. Indian creators frequently draw from real-life sporting icons, political figures and entertainers, but they also rely on the legal protection afforded to fictionalisation, composite characters and loosely inspired narratives. The outcome of this case could help clarify how far filmmakers can go when a public figure's career, style or public persona becomes part of the creative raw material.
Inspiration Versus Identity
The makers' argument that Ganguly was merely a source of inspiration is likely to be tested against the way the film is marketed, written and visually presented. Courts typically examine whether a work merely evokes a public figure or whether it creates a strong enough association to suggest endorsement, approval or direct representation. That inquiry becomes especially sensitive when the subject is a nationally recognised sports personality whose name and image carry substantial commercial value.
Ganguly, one of Indian cricket's most prominent captains, remains a highly visible public figure long after his playing career. That visibility gives any alleged reference to him added legal and commercial weight. Even if a film is not explicitly labelled as a biopic, a storyline that closely mirrors a famous person's life can still trigger disputes if it appears to capitalise on recognisable milestones, personal traits or signature moments.
At the same time, courts are cautious not to impose a blanket veto on creative works that are loosely based on real life. The law generally seeks to balance an individual's right to control the commercial use of their identity with the public interest in artistic expression. The High Court's request for specificity indicates that it is not prepared to decide the matter on general impressions alone.
What Happens Next
The immediate next step in the case will likely depend on whether Ganguly can point to particular elements in 'Doosra' that he says cross the legal line. If he does, the court may then assess whether those elements amount to actionable infringement or whether they fall within permissible creative licence. If he cannot, the filmmakers may gain ground in their claim that the project is a fictional work inspired by a public figure rather than a direct exploitation of his identity.
The dispute is being closely watched because it reflects a broader trend in Indian entertainment law: public figures are increasingly asserting control over how they are portrayed, while producers are pushing back in defence of narrative freedom. As streaming platforms and cinema houses continue to mine real-life stories for commercial content, courts are becoming the main arena for defining the limits of that practice.
For now, the High Court has not decided the merits of the case. But its insistence on precision has already set the tone: in a dispute over fame, resemblance and authorship, allegations will need to be tied to specific pages, scenes or promotional claims before the court is likely to intervene decisively.