 |
| Image from here |
As reported here, Ketan Mehta’s attempt to convert Dashrath Manjhi’s life story into a movie has hit a road block as the screening of the film has been stayed by the Civil Court of Patna due to a suit filed by filmmaker Dhananjay Kapoor.
Dashrath Manjhi’s or the ‘mountain breaker’ is famed to have hammered through a hillock with a chisel (it took him 22 years). This endeavor was carried out by him for his beloved wife.
Reports say that Ketan Mehta shot the entire film at Manjhi’s village and adjoining areas between September-November, 2012 and has already spent around 6 crores on this project. Kapoor claims to have the legal rights over Manjhi’s life story and has a written agreement dated July 24, 2007 to this effect. Ketan contends that Manjhi’s life is in the public domain and no one can claim monopoly over it. Moreover, the film is a work fiction merely drawing inspiration from his life and not a replication of his life story.
In the order granting stay of screening, the judge asked the parties to explore the possibility of a settlement.
It is pertinent to note that the right of publicity evolves from the right of privacy and inheres in a person. In the case of ICC v Arvee Enterprises it was held that publicity rights are acquired by a person due to his association with a particular event, sport, movie etc. The court also held that the right of publicity vests only in the individual concerned and only he can profit from it.
In the present case if no settlement is reached, it may be argued that since Manjhi through his ‘path breaking’ endeavor gained fame and hence acquired publicity rights, his permission was required for making of the film. However, it could also be argued that so far as his life is in the public domain consent to publish those parts of his life was not required. In the famous case of R Rajagopal v State of Tamil Nadu, the Supreme had held that the Nakkheeran (a magazine) did not require consent to publish the life story of the serial killer Auto Shankar, insofar as it was based on public records. However, if it went beyond such records, it could lead to an invasion of privacy. Moreover, the fact that Manjhi is no more would also be a relevant fact in deciding the present case.
As per earlier press articles in October 2012, Ketan Mehta had acquired the rights from Manjhi’s son after Manjhi’s death. Whereas Dhananjay Kapoor acquired it directly from Manjhi prior to his death. Several issues arise in this regard: (1) Whether Dhananjay Kapoor has the exclusive right to make a film on life of Manjhi? (2) Whether the personality rights of Manjhi are inherited by his son and therefore whether he has the right to grant biopic rights to producers like Ketan Mehta? An analogy may be drawn with the law of defamation of the dead. Defamation of a deceased person does not give rise to a civil right of action at common law in favour of surviving spouse, family or relatives, who are not themselves defamed. The maxim ‘actio personalis moritur cum persona’ embodies within it the English principle that a personal action dies with the Plaintiff. Also Section 306 of the Indian Succession Act states that “All demands whatsoever and all rights to prosecute or defend any action or special proceeding existing in favour of or against a person at the time of his decease, survive to and against his executors or administrators; except causes of action for defamation, assault, as defined in the Indian Penal Code, (45 of 1860.) or other personal injuries not causing the death of the party; and except also cases where, after the death of the party, the relief sought could not be enjoyed or granting it would be nugatory.” We perhaps need a judicial precedent to determine the descendability of personality rights.