Aditya Dhar has initiated a defamation lawsuit against Santosh Kumar, a professional writer, who had earlier convened a press conference and alleged that the Dhurandhar director had copied or misappropriated his creative work.
In a significant development, the Bombay High Court on Wednesday granted interim relief to Aditya Dhar by restraining Santosh Kumar from referring to him as a “chor” (thief). The court’s direction came while hearing the defamation plea filed by Dhar, who objected to the public allegations made against him.
During the proceedings, Advocate Birendra Saraf, appearing on behalf of Dhar, argued before Justice Arif Doctor that while Kumar is free to pursue appropriate legal remedies if he believes his script has been stolen, he cannot publicly label Dhar as a thief. Saraf emphasized that the primary concern was to prevent defamatory statements and requested the court to stop Kumar from making such accusations in public.
Saraf further drew the court’s attention to the transcript of the press conference conducted by Kumar. He pointed out that Kumar himself had admitted that he had never actually shared his script with Dhar, yet he continued to accuse him of theft. Saraf highlighted this inconsistency to demonstrate the lack of basis for the allegations.
He also noted that Kumar had acknowledged differences between the two scripts, mentioning only a broad thematic similarity. Saraf argued that Dhurandhar belongs to a particular film genre and that such narrative overlaps are not uncommon, as similar storylines have existed across time.
After hearing the submissions, the bench stated that it would issue a notice to Santosh Kumar and proceed with the matter once he appears before the court. However, considering the urgency expressed by Dhar’s counsel, Saraf requested ad interim relief specifically to restrict the use of terms like “theft” and “chori” in reference to Dhar.
Accepting this request, the court passed an interim order directing that, until the next hearing, Kumar must refrain from calling Dhar a thief or using any similar defamatory expressions. The court also recorded that Kumar was neither personally present nor represented by legal counsel during the hearing, and accordingly issued a notice to ensure his participation in the upcoming proceedings.
