Kamal Ghorui
Amidst all the love and box office numbers that ‘Dhurandhar 2’ is getting, the film landed in trouble as Trimurti films filed a case against the makers for using the song ‘Oye Oye (Tirchi Topi Wale)’ in the film. As per the court’s order last week, the case is being solved through mediation. On Wednesday, the Delhi High Court on Wednesday recorded an undertaking from filmmaker Rajeev Rai that he would refrain from speaking to the media about the ‘Dhurandhar ‘2 song dispute while its in mediation. Justice Tushar Rao Gedela said that Rai had continued to make public remarks about the case and even about court proceedings despite the matter having already been referred to mediation. The court added that once a litigant approaches the judiciary, they are expected to exercise restraint in publicly discussing issues that are sub judice. Senior Advocate Swathi Sukumar, appearing on behalf of Rai, assured the court that her client would avoid commenting on the matter during the mediation process. Taking this on record, the court observed that such restraint is essential to prevent disruption of mediation efforts and to avoid intensifying the dispute outside the courtroom.The bench clarified that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case at this stage. It further stated that the undertaking would remain in effect until the next hearing, when the matter will be reviewed again.The dispute stems from allegations by Trimurti Films, which claims that the song Rang De Lal (Oye Oye) in Dhurandhar 2 borrows from Tirchi Topiwala, a track from the 1989 film Tridev, without proper authorisation. The defendants have denied these claims and opposed any interim relief sought.The matter had been referred to mediation last week. Wednesday’s proceedings were triggered by an application from Super Cassettes, which alleged that Rai continued to give interviews after agreeing to mediation, commenting on both the court process and the substance of the dispute.Senior Advocate Akhil Sibal, representing the company, argued that such statements were prejudicial and were adversely affecting the film’s theatrical run. “They are calling us thieves while the very issue is before this Court for consideration,” he submitted. He further contended that a litigant cannot simultaneously seek relief from the court while publicly airing allegations, adding that such remarks amounted to running a parallel narrative in the media on a matter pending adjudication.Responding to this, Sukumar said the comments were made out of anguish and emphasised Rai’s willingness to cooperate in mediation. “They get praise every day for being a box office hit. Equally, two people criticising them is not going to bring down heavens,” she argued, maintaining that the defendants should be open to criticism.She also reiterated that Rai had voluntarily agreed to refrain from making further public statements during mediation to aid resolution, while opposing any blanket restriction on free speech. The court, however, remarked that while individuals are entitled to their opinions, making imputations or commenting on an ongoing dispute is not appropriate. It underlined that litigants must either place their trust in the judicial process or seek remedies elsewhere, but cannot pursue parallel commentary that may influence proceedings.
