The reputation of a person, as well as personality rights and right to privacy are not heritable and they stand extinguished with the death of the person concerned. This observation was made by the Delhi high court held in the Sushant Singh Rajput biopic case. The court also held that if the writing of the life story of a person, whether laudatory or otherwise, and its publication without his consent invaded the person’s right to privacy, the remedy lay not in any injunction against the publication itself, but in a tortuous action for damages.
The plaintiff in this case was Krishna Kishore Singh, father of Sushant Singh Rajput who passed away on 14th June, 2020. Around March 2021, the father filed a quia timet action based on certain information that the defendants i.e. producer Sarla A. Saraogi and others were in the process of producing a movie based on the life of Sushant Singh Rajput, without taking permission of any of his legal representatives. The plaintiff sought permanent injunction against the defendants from using the late actor’s name, caricature or lifestyle in any projects or films without the prior permission of the plaintiff, as the same would infringe the personality rights of Sushant and cause deception in the minds of the public.
The high court observed that the reputation of a person, as well as personality rights and right to privacy are not heritable and stand extinguished with the death of the person concerned. The maker of such movie or web series is not required to take prior consent from the heir of the person for the purpose of producing a movie or web series basis their life and events, it observed. This right to privacy cannot be canvassed by one person, on behalf of another, without due authorisation, the court explained.
The court further went on to observe that when the article, or publication, or movie, is based on a prior published material that is available in the public domain and the plaintiff chose not to impugn or challenge the same, no injunction could be sought by the plaintiff against the subsequent publication or movie, which was based thereon. Lastly, the court also pointed out that no concept such as “Celebrity Rights” can subsist in a celebrity, and the same is not permissible under the Constitution. Rights which emanate from one’s personality, and persona, would be available to one and all, and not only to celebrities.
In light of the aforementioned observations, the court dismissed the application filed by the plaintiff, thereby allowing the defendant to exploit the film. However, the court also noted that the right of the plaintiff to maintain and prosecute the suit for damages from the defendants, would stand preserved and be decided on merits.
