Gangubhai Kathiawadi Movie : Bombay High Court Stays Defamation Proceedings Against Alia Bhatt, Sanjay Leela Bhansali And Others
story
The Bombay High Court on Wednesday confirmed the stay on defamation proceedings initiated against makers of the film Gangubai Kathiawadi as the complainant was prima facie unable to show that he was Gangubai's adopted son.While admitting the petition under section 482 of the CrPC filed by lead actor Alia Bhatt, Sanjay Leela Bhansali and others, Justice SK Shinde observed that prima facie...
Your free access to Live Law has expired
Please Subscribe for unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments, Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.
The Bombay High Court on Wednesday confirmed the stay on defamation proceedings initiated against makers of the film Gangubai Kathiawadi as the complainant was prima facie unable to show that he was Gangubai's adopted son.
While admitting the petition under section 482 of the CrPC filed by lead actor Alia Bhatt, Sanjay Leela Bhansali and others, Justice SK Shinde observed that prima facie the complaint did not disclose ingredients of defamation under section 499(1) of the IPC.
According to section 499(1), defamation of a deceased person is made out only if the imputation would harm the reputation had he been alive or it was intended to be hurtful to the feelings of his family or other near relatives.
The makers assailed the Metropolitan Magistrate's orders, issuing process and summoning the book's authors and movie's producers on Babuji Shah's complaint alleging defamation under sections 499,500,502 of the IPC.
Earlier another bench granted the makers ad-interm relief of a stay on the proceedings before the Magistrate.
Senior Advocate Aabad Ponda for Bhansali and Bhatt vehemently argued that the film is based on a chapter in the book "Mafia Queens of Mumbai" written and published several years ago in 2011, but no action was taken alleging defamation through the book until the movie in 2020.
Ponda further submitted that the twin tests of defamation as laid down in Section 499 of IPC and upheld in the judgment of Subramanian Swamy v Union of India (2016) 7 SCC 221 are not satisfied.
Neither the book nor does the movie even mention the adopted son. So there can't be any intention to defame him, Ponda said.
The makers didn't even know of his existence before the complaints were filed, he added. Ponda submitted that the man hadn't submitted documents with the criminal defamation complainant before the magistrate to show he was the adopted son. He said that the man had cited just two witnesses to claim he was the adopted son.
Justice Shinde then asked Babuji Shah's counsel to show proof of adoption. "How are you claiming to be a family member?"
His lawyer cited a ration card. "This mentions that I am her son."
However, the court was not satisfied. "Your complaint must disclose you are the near relative. What is the document to show you are the adopted son? "
Shah's counsel was unable to point out the exact date of his adoption either when asked.
The court then went on to grant interim relief to the filmmakers and authors of the book. The proceedings shall remain stayed till the pendency of the quashing petition.
"Prima facie the complaint does not disclose the requirements appended to 499(1)....," the court said while dictating the order.
The court relied on the twin conditions to make out a case for relief under section 199 of the CrPC in Subramanian Swamy vs Union Of India.
It observed that while the man was claiming to be deceased Gangubai Kathiawadi's adopted son, "Prima facie there is no material indicating that he is a family member or a near relative...."
Consequently, he has failed to show that the depiction in the film produced by the accused was intended to hurt him.
Authors of the book S Hussain Zaidi and Jane Borges were granted similar relief.
Background
Complainant Babuji Shah had asserted before the Magistrate that the chapter relating to Kathiawadi in the novel was defamatory, tarnished her reputation and infringed upon his deceased mother's right to privacy and self-respect.
Following the release of the promotional video for the film, Shah approached court, claiming to be aggrieved that his "mother" was portrayed as a prostitute, brothel keeper and mafia queen in the film and the book. Specifically, he objected to the fact that Kathiawadi was shown smoking a bidi in the promo.
For the Applicants - Aabad Ponda, Senior Counsel a/w Mr. Parag Khandhar and Ms. Prachi Garg i/b DSK Legal.