NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court on Thursday dismissed a plea by real estate tycoon Sushil Ansal for ad interim injunction against release of a web series based on a book written by 1997 Uphaar Cinema Fire tragedy case victims Neelam and Shekhar Krishnamoorthy, whose two teenaged sons perished in the inferno in the theatre.
Justice Yashwant Varma declined any relief to Ansal, while noting that the web series in question is yet to be aired and it has had no occasion to view the same in its entirety.
The web series 'Trial by Fire' is set to be released on January 13, 2023.
"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. In the absence of the material being available to be viewed or examined it would also be inexpedient to even venture to return prima facie findings with respect to the allegation of the plaintiff that the series would carry defamatory and vilifying statements," the court said in its order.
The court also noted the disclaimer to the web series, which merely claimed to be “inspired” by the book titled, 'Trial By Fire: The Tragic Tale of the Uphaar Fire Tragedy'.
"Undisputedly, the horrific incident which occurred on June 13, 1997 has been the subject matter of public debate and discussion since then. The unimaginable tragedy which unfolded on that date had made a nation bow its head in shame. The negligent conduct of the plaintiff is well documented and also fell for adverse comment by our Supreme Court as would be evident from the extracts of its decision, which is an iteration of avarice and greed," the court said.
The court also found no justification to consider the grant of an ad interim injunction based on something which came to be published way back in 2016.
The court rejected Ansal's claim that a web series is likely to have a wider circulation and a greater impact than a written work, saying the plaintiff chose to remain indolent and took no pre-emptive steps in respect of the said work at the first available opportunity as the book was first published in 2016.
"The court is also constrained to observe that prima facie the plaintiff 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 08 January 2023," the judge said.
The court also said it must also necessarily bear in mind at this stage that the work on which the web series is based has been penned by 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 bench said.
"Ultimately it would be for a reasonably informed individual acting upon contemporary standards to form his/her opinion. In any case and prima facie the court finds itself unconvinced to record or arrive at the conclusion that the narrative penned by defendant Nos. 4 and 5 (the Krishnamurthys) could be said to be wholly fantastical or deprived of a semblance of the truth as conceived," the bench added.
The bench further said that information and reportage with respect to the tragedy which unfolded has remained in circulation for the past 26 years, commencing from the date when the First Information Report came to be recorded and right up to the ultimate conviction of the plaintiff, the press as well as social media platforms have consistently tracked and reported developments relating to the said crime.
"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 bench said.
.webp)
