Gunjan Saxena - The Kargil Girl: Delhi HC Refuses To Grant Injunction In A Plea Moved By Centre

While refusing to grant relief, the Single Bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher noted that the movie has already been on the Netflix platform for long and it is now too late to grant injunction.

Filed by Union of India and the Indian Air Force against the producers of the movie - Dharma Productions, the plea sought court's direction to restrain the producers of the movie and any OTT platform to showcase it either privately or in public domain.

The Central Government also demanded the withdrawal of the film from all social media platforms, electronic modes, and even from the publicity campaigns.

It is argued by the Petitioners that under the Air Force Act and the Air Force Rules, that makers of any movie, serial or commercial wishing to depict the Indian Air Force or requiring assistance of the armed forces have to take the prior approval of the Ministry of Defence.

The requirement of prior approval is also stipulated in the 2013 guidelines issued by the Ministry of Defence, which requires a preview of the film to be produced before a 'Preview Committee' set up under the said guidelines.

It is argued by the Petitioners that while offering to consider the said proposal for offering requisite assistance from the armed forces, the Ministry was under a bonafide belief and impression that the intentions of the Defendants was to make a film whereby the Indian Air Force would be showcased with due authenticity and integrity, which encourage the youth of the nation to join the Armed Forces and serve the nation.

While claiming that the Defendants unilaterally changed the name of the movie to 'Gunjan Saxena: The Kargil Girl' from just the 'Kargil Girl' without the approval of the Ministry, it was argued that:

'A Historical film made on the Indian Armed Forces based on the life story of a war hero has to be based on the true incidents/instances and the audience watching such a biopic film assumes that the incidents/events shown therein are actual and true event. Such a movie cannot be fictionalized or dramatized to such an extent as in the present movie wherein an entirely different perspective is created based on false and misleading facts/events which leaves an adverse impression in the minds of the viewers thereby tarnishing the image of the true characters and the organization which is shown in a historical and biopic film.'

The Petitioners further submitted that the Defendants projected their commercial film as a historical biopic and distorted the true and correct facts purely for sensationalizing the same in order to make commercial gains.

The Petitioners in this case were represented by Additional Solicitor General Sanjay Jain, and Standing Counsel Gaurang Kanth.