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

The Delhi High Court on Wednesday reserved its decision on the 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 reserved the order on Ansal’s application seeking relief of temporary injunction filed in the 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’.

#DelhiHighCourt to hear the suit moved by Real estate tycoon Sushil Ansal seeking permanent and mandatory injunction against the release of @Netflix Series ‘Trial By Fire' which is based on the Uphaar fire tragedy.#SushilAnsal #UphaarFire #Netflix #TrialByFire pic.twitter.com/yYFO6b0HS1

— Live Law (@LiveLawIndia) January 11, 2023

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.

Gopal Ansal and his brother Sushil 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. 

Seeking the interim relief, Senior Advocate Siddharth Aggarwal appearing for Ansal submitted before the court that while the impugned series carries a disclaimer stating that the show is a “work of fiction”, Ansal’s real name is taken thrice in the trailer, thereby harming his reputation and other rights.

“You take my name. I cannot say more than this. This disclaimer, in my humble case, is the death knell to the case of the publisher,” he submitted.

As Aggarwal referred to certain passages from the book to contend that Ansal’s characterization is not as per public record, Justice Varma orally remarked: “This may be their critique of their judgment and anguish of the parents, but it cannot be a claim for defamation.”

Aggarwal submitted that the impugned series will have a much larger impact as compared to the book.

“Today the only glimpse we have into what's going to be released is the book which makes it clear that I've gotten away scot free,” he said.

He added: “What we have today is more than a prima facie basis to make an allegation that the movie is going to be a mis-characterisation of me, the process and judgments.”

On the other hand, Senior Advocate Rajiv Nayar appearing for Netflix submitted that courts have deprecated injunctions on the basis of trailers and teasers and that the threshold of grant of pre-publication injunction is very high.

“On 19th September 2016 the book is released. On 18th December, 2019, there are news reports that web series is going to be created. On 8th November 2021, the plaintiff is sentenced to 7 years sentence with Rs. 2.25 crores, widely reported by media. There is an appeal in sessions court and in July, conviction is upheld but reduces the sentence for period already undergone. This is all in public domain. But what's more significant is date of 14 December 2022 where we announce that we're going to have web series from 13 January. On 14 December our intention to screen it on January 13 is shown to press. And this plaintiff knocks door at the last minute,” Nayar said.

He added: “Can we speculate what the film would be? Something which has been in public domain for the last six years...”

Senior Advocate Vikas Pahwa, representing 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 this, Nayar said: “I have to interject. I didn't know about this. A gentleman who tampers with evidence, who was convicted for section 304A, should now be convicted for perjury? Complete misrepresentation of fact.”

After hearing the parties, the court reserved its order on grant of interim relief.

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."