Thread by @LawBeatInd

#SupremeCourt will today hear plea by Gangubai’s adopted son against Sanjay Leela Bhansali and @aliaa08 seeking stay of producing and directing any film based on the novel on the life of #GangubaiKathiawadi

The #SupremeCourt had yesterday asked the producers of the film if they could change the title of the film. The advocates representing #SanjayLeelaBhansali Productions informed the court that it would not be possible to do so #GangubaiKathiawadi

CA Sundaram, Sr.Adv: I appear for the respondent, almost everything is done. To change the name would practically not be possible as it will have to go through censors again #GangubaiKathiawadi

Sundaram: There are 2 issues . 1) Entire defamation is based on a book released in 2011 they found not necessary to challenge at that time, it was titled “Mafia Queens of Bombay.” Our film glorifies #GangubaiKathiawadi I come from a State where MS Subbalakshmi and MLV who became

Great singers despite hailing from Devadasi community. At the juncture when censor certificate and legal right is given they have to show that some case has arisen strong enough. #GangubaiKathiawadi

Sundaram: She passed away 1980, it is a positive film. I am being laudatory. There is no comparison, films made on persons like Gandhi should be named on them. Sometimes negative side needs to be shown to show the positive side . #GangubaiKathiawadi

Sundaram: There is a statue of this lady in the area. She is larger than life. For a person of that stature, there is no right to privacy. First of all we have a person who has come before this court claiming to be adopted son. There is no evidence #GangubaiKathiawadi

Sundaram: There is no prima facie proof of evidence is not given #GangubaiKathiawadi , there is not even a whisper in this case. When the person who is suing has not made a case for being adopted son, its a third party action

Bench: We had asked the petitioner if he can show any school records. Has he done it?

Counsel: Earlier there was not practice to name the mother in school records.

Sundaram: Even the ration card he has show is a photocopy. #GangubaiKathiawadi

Sundaram: Even the Bombay HC has come to finding that they have not shown anything to show adoption. So they cannot be treated as anybody but a third party. It is personal action that dies with a person, so even the legal heirs dont have a right #GangubaiKathiawadi

Sundaram: She was a great lady, she was forced into a red light area and look what she has accomplished. I am pressing her more. Its not a matter of shame, its a matter of credit #GangubaiKathiawadi

Court: If there are sensibilities in the family?

Sundaram: Can I make a film about MS Subbulakshmi today without bringing up the fact that she came from a Devadasi family? #GangubaiKathiawadi Nothing prima facie has been shown to show its defamatory.

Sundaram: The title has been advertised, promos, trailers have come out. Whatever had to be done in the name has already been done. #GangubaiKathiawadi . A PIL was filed in Bombay HC and it was dismissed.

Sundaram: If the name has already been published, then the remedy is damages, not damages. The whole thing is every report about her speaks of her as a social activist. There was no sensibility to call her Mafia Queen. #GangubaiKathiawadi

Court: Nobody told him, he argued

Sundaram: What has been sought for is the last minute injunction of the film, on the basis of the name.

Court: There are 2 remedies one is damages other is injection.

Sundaram: If it is prior to publishing its defamation. There is nothing to show that the film is defamatory

Sundaram: The chapter on her in the book Mafia Queen is this. I just wanted to show how the chapter shows her to be a matriarch of the area #GangubaiKathiawadi

Sundaram: At this stage when we are talking about prima facie, he becomes aware of this 11 years when the film comes out! Unfortunately she was termed Mafia by association #GangubaiKathiawadi

Sundaram: The film has been certified by the censor board, so the legal right and fundamental rights vests with the producers. #GangubaiKathiawadi

Sundaram: He says that since his childhood, he and his mother were residing in Kamatipura and she defender fundamental rights. This is what the film brings out. She was forced into a red light area, its true, how can it be defamatory? #GangubaiKathiawadi

Sundaram: You know what we think of MS Subbulakshmi, we know what we think of ML Vasanthakumari. If someone is going to make a film on them, are they not going to show that they hail from Devadasi community ? #GangubaiKathiawadi

Sundaram: What’s depicted in the movie is that she rose from that level and later met Pandit Nehru and became a prominent figure. #GangubaiKathiawadi

Court: The plaint doesn’t even say he was adopted, it just says I am the son.

Sundaram: It is a case for bare injunction

Court: If the court arrives at the finding that its defamatory, there is no need to go into other aspects.

Sundaram: In the injunction 2 things have to be shown, that there is a prima facie case of defamation made out. #GangubaiKathiawadi

Sundaram: The promotions have been going on for 7 months, Social media is full of it. Nobody is saying that she is a terrible person. Third party rights have come into play #GangubaiKathiawadi

Court: What is extremely unfortunate is that our society is such that victims are often treated as perpetrators. There are provisions in law which prevent the name of a victim. #GangubaiKathiawadi

Sundaram: She is not a victim. There is a statue of her.

Court: If you personally ask me, I would say no one is a victim. There are judgments of this court that prohibits the publication of name. This court recognises the harassment that these people go through. He says lady is not there anymore, there are family members #Gangubai

Sundaram: This is a case by a man who has not seen the film, there has to be a prima facie case.

Banerjee J: If you ask me personally, I have every respect for those women who are pushed into this life. For many years, I used to head the LSA in the course of the legal aid work

I once came across a trafficked woman. A 14 year old girl, who was not getting 4 square meals was brought up by her aunt who could not look after her. Someone took her to Bombay under the guise of a job, she went to get food. When she went there she was abused by multiple men

In course of one night everyone wanted a young girl. Some of them insisted she satisfy them unprotected, she escaped with the assistance of one of the client. She was handed over. She was picked up by a journalist and handed over to NGO. She was HIV positive

She caught my hand like this and said “What wrong have I done? I just wanted to eat rice!” #GangubaiKathiawadi

Banerjee J: When I mention this, no one would know the identity of the person.

Sundaram: The person here is a social worker, she worked for the betterment

Banerjee J: I have also met a lady who from out of those circumstances wanted to get the women out of there #Gangubai

Sundaram: During #COVID19 I wanted to donate to someone who was working in this area. They returned my money and told me that they were getting 3 meals a day. Here is a women who worked for upliftment of the women #GangubaiKathiawadi

Sundaram: These films are being made with the hope that if 500 people watch the film, at least 100 become aware of their realities. #GangubaiKathiawadi , here this person has not even established prima facie. The question is is she being defamed? That is not brought up

Sundaram: There is nothing to show that they are adopted children, not even an affidavit of the people of the area.

Court: In one of the affidavits, there is an admission that she had 4 adopted children and one of them is Babu #GangubaiKathiawadi

Sundaram: The author says he spoke to her adopted daughter, that’s all. This is the author trying to defend himself, this is no proof of adoption. I am on a slightly different issue here. If we are going to fight for the right of somebody the primary aspect is the person concerne

Sundaram: If the person concerned says they were defamed its another concern, if that person has not been defamed if they have not been defamed then how can a third party be aggrieved? #GangubaiKathiawadi

Sundaram: How many books have been written about our father of our nation? There are many of aspects of his life that has been written about including how he consumed alcohol. He is a public figure milords #GangubaiKathiawadi

Sundaram: They have to first show that the lady concerned was defamed and then they have to show the manner in which she was defamed. They have to show how the defamation has affected them #GangubaiKathiawadi

Sundaram: If the court accesses @Wikipedia its all there. Its all in public domain. #GangubaiKathiawadi the 2008 page in the website says she was sold into prostitution. They haven’t done anything. This action is not bonafide.

Court: Let us not going into that

Sundaram refers to the judgments of the #SupremeCourt in support of his contention #GangubaiKathiawadi

Sundaram: the whole problem in this case appears to be that she is not to be stated to have been violated. #GangubaiKathiawadi

Mukul Rohatgi, Sr.Adv: First on merits the court can note that the book is of 2011, it is not derogatory at all. In fact that character is glorified, she came in those difficult circumstance and rose. She rose there from #GangubaiKathiawadi

Rohatgi: He has not anywehere proved that he is an adopted son. #GangubaiKathiawadi

Court: The question of declaration and legal status will come only when he is claiming property. #GangubaiKathiawadi He has to of course show he is an adopted son.

Rohatgi: He has to establish his locus from the fact that he is the adopted son and he will be damned if the movie releases. By this action he is drawing adverse feelings against himself #GangubaiKathiawadi

Rohatgi: Defamation will come into place if suppose #GangubaiKathiawadi was alive. The suit for defamation abates on the death of the person.

Rohatgi: He should ideally have challenged the censor certification, he has not challenged it. He has filed a suit for defamation here. #GangubaiKathiawadi

Rohatgi: He has filed 3 proceedings. 1) Suit, 2) writ petition for changing the name of the film, 3) There is also a criminal defamation. How many proceedings can he initiate. The order of Bombay High Court in July’21. It is being brought before this court before release

Rohatgi: Today tickets have been sold! There was a film made on Sanjay Gandhi, a lady claiming to be daughter of Sanjay Gandhi, she filed a case for cancellation. #gangubaikathiyawadi

Rohatgi: Its not that we have dreamt of #GangubaiKathiawadi and made a movie on it. It is based on books

Rohatgi reads the judgment of #SupremeCourt pertaining to Padmaavat says “My case is much better than this case.” #Gangubai

Rohatgi: There is no case of public order here. Its just case of defamation. #GangubaiKathiawadi

Rohatgi: The chapter which was have picturised is from the book published in 2011, there are also other books on this. This is book is called Caged. #GangubaiKathiawadi

Rohatgi: There are many rights the producer, actor, distributor, writer. So many rights are bundled, it results in a Rs.500 ticket in a cinema hall! Today at 1 PM, to say freeze everything is a prima facie violation of law #GangubaiKathiawadi

Court: Please answer the arguments which have been made on the other side.

Counsel for petitioner: Yes milords. 306 does not says that this provision will independently apply, 499 will apply. His family members can maintain a defamation #GangubaiKathiawadi

Counsel: As far as I am concerned, this movie is made after 40 years, I am not saying my mother is defamed.

Court: They say it is glorification of a person who achieved great things from such circumstances. What is there is that amounts to defamation? #GangubaiKathiawadi

Counsel: The book contains defamatory statements, the movie is made from the book.

Court: Show us which sentence of the book is defamatory? #GangubaiKathiawadi

Counsel: The statement in the promo clearly shows something defamatory.

Court: The writer has asked how you are adopted son and you are taking advantage of it now. How were you adopted? In What manner? What rights and customs ? #GangubaiKathiawadi

Counsel: Prior to 1956 adoption was not permissible.

Court: Where have you said that in your petitioner?

Counsel: In these areas there are many orphans, there are customs by which they adopt children #GangubaiKathiawadi

Counsel: Her date of birth ins 1908, if she was brought from Gujarat to Mumbai. In 2011 from where can they verify this? Nobody can say this.

Court: See what is required to be pleaded and tell us where you have pleaded #GangubaiKathiawadi

Court: If you are seeking an ad-interim injunction, you have to make a prima facie case! #GangubaiKathiawadi

Counsel: Whether I am adopted or not has to be decided during the trial.

Court: You have to make a prima facie.

SLP dismissed. Reasons to follow #GangubaiKathiawadi