It has become a norm to rake up a controversy before a film’s release — usually copyright, trademark or defamation. This time it was both, and the whole drama played out across two consecutive days ending the morning the film opened.
The background
Gulaab Gang is a Hindi film dealing with social injustices faced by Indian women, and a group of pink sari-clad women who fight back. It was inspired — though the makers vehemently disputed this — by a real group in Uttar Pradesh, the Gulabi Gang, led by Sampat Pal Devi, who confront injustices meted out to girls and women in villages around them.
The gang’s activities had featured in films and documentaries before, so Sampat Pal was not new to being documented. From news reports it was clear that since late 2012 she was unhappy about a film being made about her gang, even one starring Madhuri Dixit as a character allegedly based on her. She stated she would stall the release, since the filmmakers had not sought her permission and the lead actor had never met her.
Knowing her rights
She has been vocal about being portrayed negatively by the media. What is genuinely striking — and praiseworthy — is her precise awareness of her intellectual property rights. Recognising defamation is understandable; anyone with a reputation at stake would. But it was evident from her interviews that she understood that the pink sari functions as her gang’s trademark, and that she had rights over her gang’s name. Prior experience of being filmed presumably accounts for some of it.
The objection
Beyond general displeasure, she objected to the film portraying her and her gang as women resorting to violence with sickles and scythes — that is, in a bad light. Reports suggested the filmmakers and Sampat Pal had been attempting a settlement that did not favour her, after which she filed in the Delhi High Court on grounds of defamation and intellectual property violation.
Two days
On 5 March 2014, the Delhi High Court disallowed releasing, exhibiting, distributing and promoting the film in censored or uncensored form until the next hearing, appointed for 8 May 2014.
On 6 March 2014, the producers appealed. The appeal was decided against Sampat Pal, and the film released on 7 March 2014.
In the appeal, the court ordered that the film carry a disclaimer stating it has nothing to do with Sampat Pal, her life or her gang. It also observed that she could seek monetary relief.
The principle
That observation is the legally significant part, and it reflects a settled line: pre-publication injunctions are not granted where damages are an adequate remedy. Courts are reluctant to restrain publication in advance — the harm to expression from blocking a work is treated as weightier than a harm that money can later address.
The practical consequence for anyone in Sampat Pal’s position is that timing is everything. A claim brought when filming was announced, or when the promotional campaign began, is a very different application from one brought days before release, when the balance of convenience has shifted decisively toward the party that has already spent the money.
The unanswered questions
Several things about the episode remained puzzling. It was not clear whether Sampat Pal concluded the film was defamatory from posters and promotional clips alone, or whether she was ever offered a chance to view it before litigating — and if not, why not.
And there is the producers’ position. They were obviously inspired by her gang and its activities. Why not acknowledge and credit her? Why deny it unabashedly in court when the film’s actors had pretty much admitted it during promotion and filming?
Where the law has gone since. The claim would find firmer footing today. Indian courts have developed a substantial body of personality rights jurisprudence protecting a person’s name, image, likeness and persona from unauthorised commercial use — a line of cases considerably more developed than when this was decided. The reluctance to grant pre-release injunctions remains, but the underlying right is better recognised.
For now, when the film hit theatres, there were at least a number of curious people who watched it for the ruckus alone. As they say, any publicity is good publicity.
The takeaways
- Pre-publication injunctions are rarely granted where damages would suffice.
- A disclaimer was the compromise — release permitted, association denied.
- Act early — a claim days before release faces the worst balance of convenience.
- Personality rights are better developed now than at the time of this dispute.
Frequently asked questions
Can a film release be blocked for defamation? Rarely — courts are reluctant to grant pre-publication injunctions where monetary relief is an adequate remedy, as the appellate court held here.
What relief did the court order instead? That the film carry a disclaimer stating it has nothing to do with Sampat Pal, her life or her gang, with liberty to seek monetary relief.
Do real people have rights over films based on their lives? Personality rights protecting name, image and likeness are now well recognised by Indian courts, though enforcing them against a completed film remains difficult.
When should such a claim be brought? As early as possible — at announcement or promotion stage, before the balance of convenience shifts toward a producer who has already incurred the cost.
Useful official resources
- The Copyright Act, 1957
- Delhi High Court