Right To Privacy Is Not Inheritable: Delhi HC Refuses To Stay Streaming Of Movie Based On Late Actor Sushant Singh Rajput

The Delhi High Court dismissed a Commercial Civil Suit along with an Interlocutory Application filed against the continued streaming of a movie titled ‘Nyay: The Justice’, which allegedly infringes the celebrity/publicity rights inherited by the Plaintiff upon the death of his son Sushant Singh Rajput.

The Bench of Justice C.Hari Shankar observed that the rights to privacy, publicity, and personality are extinguishable upon the demise of the individual and therefore can't be inherited by their heirs or successors. The plaintiff did not inherit these rights as they ceased to exist when his son died. In this context, the Court noted, “The rights ventilated in the plaint – i.e., the right to privacy, the right to publicity and the personality rights which vested in SSR, are not heritable. They died with the death of SSR. The said rights, therefore, did not survive for espousal by the plaintiff”.

In this case, the Plaintiff filed an Interlocutory Injunction along with the Commercial Civil Suit against the Defendants for using SSR’s name, caricature, or lifestyle in any projects or movies without prior permission of the Plaintiff. The application of Interlocutory Injunction was dismissed by the Coordinate Bench of the High Court. The Plaintiff then filed another Interlocutory Application before the Division Bench which was disposed of wherein the Court granted liberty to the Plaintiff to re-apply for an injunction ‘if there is any change in circumstance’.

Advocate Varun Singh appeared for the Plaintiff and Senior Advocate Chander M. Lall appeared for the Defendants.

The Court placed reliance on the judgment in the cases R. Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu ((1994) 6 SCC 632), Khushwant Singh And Anr. vs Maneka Gandhi (2001 SCC OnLine Del 1030), Titan Industries Ltd. vs M/S Ramkumar Jewellers (2012 SCC OnLine Del 2382), ICC Development (International) vs Arvee Enterprises (2003 SCC OnLine Del 2) and Deepa Jayakumar vs A.L. Vijay (AIR 2021 Mad 167), while noting that the right to privacy is a fundamental right that protects a person's name, likeness, and life story from being used without their consent. However, this right does not apply to public officials or public figures, unless the publication is made with reckless disregard for the truth.

The Court further held that if a person's right to privacy is violated, they can sue for damages, but they cannot seek an injunction to prevent the publication. This is because the right to freedom of expression, as guaranteed by Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India, takes precedence over the right to privacy. The publisher of a publication is not required to take permission from the person about whom the publication is being made, or to verify the truth of the contents, as long as the information was previously available in the public domain.

Additionally, the Court asserted that the movie had used information featured in the media, which was neither contested by SSR nor the Plaintiff; therefore, there is no infringement of any right of the Plaintiff. The only remedy with the Plaintiff was to claim damages, which the Plaintiff had already claimed, the Court held.

Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the Suit.

Cause Title: Krishna Kishore Singh v. Sarla A Saraogi & Ors.

Click here to read/download Judgment