Uphaar Fire Tragedy: Delhi High Court Rejects Sushil Ansal’s Plea Seeking Stay On Netflix Series ‘Trial By Fire’

The Delhi High Court on Thursday rejected a plea moved by real estate baron Sushil Ansal seeking an ad interim stay on the release of upcoming Netflix series ‘Trial By Fire' which is based on the Uphaar fire tragedy. The series is scheduled to be released on January 13.

Justice Yashwant Varma refused to grant interim relief to Ansal in his suit which seeks permanent and mandatory injunction against the series and a restraint of further publication and circulation of the book titled ‘Trial By Fire- The tragic tale of the Uphaar Tragedy’.

The book has been authored by Neelam Krishnamoorthy and Shekhar Krishnamoorthy, who lost their two minor children in the 1997 fire incident. Neelam is also chairperson of the Association of the Victims of Uphaar Tragedy, which has led a long struggle in the case against Sushil Ansal and his brother Gopal Ansal.

Noting that the web series is yet to be aired and that the court had no occasion to view the same in its entirety, Justice Varma observed that it would be wholly inappropriate to grant injunctive reliefs at the ad interim stage even before the fictional work is viewed and properly examined in its entirety.

“Undisputedly the work authored by defendants 4 and 5 was published way back in 2016. This is clearly evident from the various newspaper articles and media reports which have been placed for the perusal of the Court. The plaintiff chose, for reasons best known to him, not to initiate any injunctive action in respect of the said work when it came to be originally published on 19 September 2016. A slothful or sluggish plaintiff seeking an injunction of the nature which is sought in these proceedings cannot be allowed to claim such reliefs,” the court said.

Observing the “unfortunate and unimaginable tragedy”, which made the nation bow its head in shame, has been in public debate, the court said that Ansal’s “negligent conduct” is well documented and also fell for adverse comment by the Supreme Court.

The court also noted that the work on which the web series is based has been penned by Krishnamoorthys, the parents who had lost teenaged children in the unfortunate incident.

“It is a story which alleges a systemic failure, manifests a cry of anguish against the manner in which the incident was prosecuted and tried. It essentially represents their perspective and opinion. A fictional rendition of their trials and tribulations cannot, prima facie, be presumed to be defamatory. More fundamentally, their personal experience and perception of the incident or the culpability of the plaintiff would remain their belief, impression and understanding of the entire episode,” the court said.

The court also observed that it would be for a reasonably informed individual acting upon contemporary standards to form his or her opinion on the series. The court said prima facie it is unconvinced to record or arrive at the conclusion that the narrative penned by the parents could be said to be “wholly fantastical or deprived of a semblance of the truth as conceived.”

“This material was always available in the public domain. Prior to the institution of the present proceedings, the plaintiff neither alleged nor asserted that his right to a fair trial was or had been prejudiced. This Court is thus of the prima facie opinion that the right of defendant Nos. 4 and 5 to narrate their tragic journey through police precincts and court halls far outweighs the asserted and yet unsubstantiated loss of reputation of the plaintiff,” the court said.

Observing that grant of injunction at an ad interim or ex parte stage must necessarily be weighed bearing in mind as to whether the plaintiff has chosen to approach the court for relief with due promptitude, Justice Varma said that Ansal’s case “woefully fails on this score.”

Yesterday, Senior Advocate Vikas Pahwa appearing for Krishnamoorthy submitted that Ansal already had knowledge of publication of the book as reference of the same was made in an application moved before the Supreme Court in 2012.

On the said submission, the court said that prima facie, Ansal clearly appears to have concealed material facts and practiced misrepresentation while asserting that he became aware of the contents of the Book only on or about January 8.

“Prima facie the Court is of the opinion that the assertion that he came to know about the contents of the said work only on 08 January 2023 is implausible,” the court said.

Sushil Ansal and his brother Gopal Ansal were awarded 7-year-jail term each in November 2021 by a CMM Court in the evidence tampering case in connection with the Uphaar fire tragedy that happened in 1997. However, in July last year, the Sessions Court reduced it to the already undergone period, meaning they were freed after spending a little over eight months in jail in the case. 

Sushil, who was convicted in the criminal cases related to the fire, in the suit has said that his portrayal in the trailer released recently "has caused and has the propensity to cause further immense and irreparable harm to his reputation and his right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India."

He has argued that the release of the impugned series will lead to further prejudice and harm to him and will be in grave breach of his fundamental rights including the right to privacy.

Ansal in the suit has further said that he had apologised before the Supreme Court to the families of the victims and had expressed deep remorse towards the unfortunate incident.

He has further said that upon gaining knowledge that the impugned series is based on the impugned book, he bought a copy of the same and "was shocked to find" that the book contains "a one-sided narration of the unfortunate incident."

Senior Advocate Siddharth Aggarwal appeared for Sushil Ansal. 

Senior Advocate Sandeep Sethi appeared for Endemol India Private Limited, Senior Advocates Rajiv Nayar and Amit Sibal appeared for Netflix. Senior Advocate Vikas Pahwa represented Krishnamoorthys and Advocate Vrinda Bhandari appeared for Penguin.

Title: Sushil Ansal v. ENDEMOL INDIA PVT. LTD. & ORS.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 31