The Bombay High Court on Thursday indicated that the defamation suit filed by writer-director Aditya Dhar against Santosh Kumar on allegations of plagiarism Dhurandhar 2 – Revenge This should not be taken further. Justice Arif Doctor suggested that both parties try to resolve the matter amicably.
Bombay High Court urges amicable resolution in Aditya Dhar-Santosh Kumar dispute over Dhurandhar The Revenge script
The court said that disputes of this nature can often be resolved without escalating to a lengthy defamation trial.
Court advised to exercise restraint on public allegations
The matter began when Santosh Kumar publicly claimed that the script of the sequel was copied from his earlier work. Aditya Dhar denied the allegation and called the claims defamatory. After this he approached the High Court for relief.
During the hearing, Justice Doctor said that if Kumar feels that his intellectual property has been copied, he is free to seek civil remedies through appropriate legal channels. However, the court made it clear that such concerns should not be raised through public statements in the media.
The court also said that disagreements over authorship could be addressed through structured legal processes rather than through public exchanges.
The lawyer clarified the position on the claim of authorship
Kumar’s lawyer told the court that his client’s complaint was limited to claiming authorship of the story. The court held that Kumar was entitled to make such a claim. Additionally, it was stressed that any such claims should be pursued legally.
Senior advocate Birendra Saraf, appearing for Dhar, argued that allegations of plagiarism should not be repeated in public and should be dealt with through proper legal process. Kumar’s counsel informed the court that he would seek instructions from his client regarding the suggestion to confine the case to legal remedies.
Earlier, on April 8, the High Court had restrained Santosh Kumar from repeating alleged defamatory statements about the script. Dhar had moved the court seeking an injunction and damages after Kumar allegedly failed to respond to a legal notice rejecting the plagiarism claims.
