Kerala HC Refuses to Stay Screening of L2: Empuraan, Slams Plea as ‘Publicity-Oriented’
This week, the Kerala High Court refused to stay the screening of L2: Empuraan, dismissing BJP leader VV Vijeesh’s plea as “publicity-oriented.” Justice CS Dias questioned the petitioner’s motives, calling the plea a “publicity interest litigation,” and noted that the film had already received CBFC certification. The judge remarked, “You are unnecessarily giving publicity to such things… I suspect your bonafides,” The filmmakers have agreed to voluntary cuts amid ongoing controversy over alleged references to the 2002 Gujarat riots. (see here for more)
Politics, Profits, and the Movie Cuts: ED conducts raids against producer of ‘Empuraan’
The Enforcement Directorate recently raided one of the producers of the film L2: Empuraan Gokulam Gopalan under FEMA provisions. Gopalan owns Sree Gokulam Chits and is under investigation for alleged forex violations. The raids coincide with controversy over Empuraan’s depiction of right-wing politics and references to the 2002 Gujarat riots. Following backlash, actor Mohanlal assured the removal of the controversial parts, while Union Minister Suresh Gopi clarified there was no censor board pressure. The CBFC ordered 24 edits, including name changes, scene deletions, and removal of riot references, for a total of 2 minutes and 8 seconds. This is not the first time such an issue has arisen. Gopalan’s firm was previously raided by the Income Tax department in 2017 for allegedly evading tax of around ₹1,107 crore in income. (See here for more)
Kiran Rao’s Laapataa Ladies Faces Plagiarism Allegations
Kiran Rao’s Laapataa Ladies, which earned widespread praise, even became India’s official entry for the 2025 Oscars, has been accused of plagiarism. Netizens have drawn parallels between Laapataa Ladies and the 2019 Arabic film Burqa City, directed by Fabrice Bracq. Both films share a similar plot: a newlywed man in the Middle East discovers that his wife has been swapped with another woman wearing a similar burqa, leading him to search for his real wife. Social media users have pointed out the striking similarities, noting that the only difference is the substitution of a burqa with a ghoonghat. Despite the controversy, neither Kiran Rao nor the film’s team has responded to the allegations. (see here for more)
Delhi HC Issues Dynamic Injunction to Curb Piracy of Undekhi
The Delhi High Court recently granted a dynamic injunction in favor of Applause Entertainment, permanently restraining several rogue websites from illegally streaming its SonyLIV series Undekhi. Justice Amit Bansal noted that the websites knowingly distributed the series without authorisation, repeatedly resurfacing under mirror or modified domain names despite previous blocking orders. The Court observed that these actions caused irreparable harm to Applause by infringing copyright and eroding revenue. It also allowed the company to implead future mirror sites under Order I Rule 10 CPC. In a broader push against piracy, the Court directed the DoT and MeitY to notify ISPs to block the infringing sites. (Read order here)
Court Awards Damages to Kerala Teacher for Unauthorized Use of Her Photo in Oppam
Princy Francis, a teacher from Kodungallur, has won a lawsuit against the makers of the 2016 Malayalam film Oppam for using her photo without consent. The Chalakudy Munsiff Court ordered the producers to pay ₹1 lakh in damages, ₹1.68 lakh in legal costs, and remove the impugned photo from the film. Francis discovered the unauthorised use while watching the movie with family. The photo was reportedly sourced from her blog without permission. The court sided with Francis, calling it a serious violation of privacy. She said the case was part of her social commitment to protecting women’s rights and setting a precedent for image use in cinema. (See here for more)
Ravi Shastri’s Betting Endorsement May Face Govt Scrutiny
Former cricketer and commentator Ravi Shastri could face action from the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting (MIB) over his social media promotion of Stake, a betting platform. Shastri has posted promotional content for the company for nearly a year on X, most recently ahead of IPL 2025. Though his posts include disclaimers claiming the content isn’t meant for Indian audiences, legal experts suggest such disclaimers may not absolve him of liability. “Betting is a violation of law,” said ASCI’s Manisha Kapoor. “Disclaimers don’t make it okay to advertise.” Under Indian law, betting—a game of chance—is prohibited, except in states with specific exemptions. The MIB has previously acted against surrogate betting ads, particularly during major sports broadcasts. Shastri has yet to respond to the controversy. (See here for more)
Delhi High Court Grants Trademark Relief to Tata Group’s Ginger Hotels Against Impersonator Websites
The Delhi High Court has directed the takedown of websites infringing on the ‘GINGER’ hotel trademark, owned by Tata Group’s Indian Hotels Company Limited (IHCL). The defendants were found running fake websites that used images of GINGER hotels to mislead consumers. The Court imposed ₹20 lakhs in costs on the defendants for running fake websites and using photos of ‘GINGER hotels to deceive consumers. (Here’s the case you can check: The Indian Hotels Company Limited vs. Ankit Sethi & Ors)
