Gangubhai Kathiawadi Movie : Bombay High Court Stays Criminal Defamation Proceedings Against Sanjay Leela Bhansali, Alia Bhatt, Bhansali Productions

The movie is based on a chapter of the book Mafia Queens of Mumbai.

Justice Revati Mohite Dere issued notice to the respondents and granted a stay on the proceedings before the trial court till September 7, in a quashing petition filed under section 482 of the CrPC.

"…till the next date, the proceeding before the trial court, qua the applicants, is stayed." the order reads.

The makers assailed the Metropolitan Magistrate's orders, issuing process and summoning the book's authors and movie's producers on Kathiawadi's 'adoptive' son's complaint alleging defamation under sections 499,500,502 of the IPC.

"Even if it is considered that, she was prostitute, that does not mean that anybody has permission to write or show or mention her as a prostitute in public," the Magistrate had remarked.

Original complainant Babuji Shah, 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.

However, before the High Court, Sanjay Leela Bhansali's Bhansali Productions, Bhansali and Bhatt, through Senior counsel Aabad Ponda argued that the complainant – Shah- had suppressed facts from the court.

Ponda contended that Shah failed to disclose in his complaint that a defamation suit in the City Civil Court regardng the same issue was dismissed in February 2021.

The contents of the film and promo released are not defamatory, and the film is based on the book published in 2011, but no action was taken alleging defamation by the book until 2020, he argued.

Ponda further submitted that the twin tests of defamation as laid down in Section 499 of IPC and upheld in the judgment of Subramaniam Swamy v Union of India (2016) 7 SCC 221 are not satisfied.

Moreover, there is no proof/documentary evidence of adoption provided in the complaint, they said. He argued that the makers were not even aware of the son's existence.

Meanwhile, Justice Nitin Sambre has refused to temporarily injunct Bhansali and others in Shah's first appeal challenging the dismissal of the defamation suit.

The court held that,

"The law on the principle of Torts that an action dies with the person, in a defamation proceedings … The contents of defamatory nature against so called adoptive mother of the Appellant(Shah) dies with her death. Apart from above, it is for the Appellant(Shah) to demonstrate that he is adoptive son of deceased- Gangubai Kathiawadi, which he has prima facie failed to. The Appellant-Plaintiff has not claimed the relief of declaration that he is adoptive son of deceased Gangubai Kathiawadi and as such he has suffered a legal injury."

Appearances

For Bhansali – Senior Advocate Aabad Ponda, Advocate Mayur Khandeparkar instructed by Advocates Chandrima Mitra, Parag Khandhar and Ms. Prachi Garg of DSK Legal briefed by Rajesh Kumar, legal head of Bhansali productions.

For Authors Hussain Zaidi and Jane Borges - Madhu Gadodia and Sujoy Mukherji i/by Naik Naik & Co.

Respondent State – APP A. D. Kamkhedkar for the State.

Click here to read/download the order