On a warm August morning in 2025, the Hon’ble Bombay High Court delivered its judgment in Ashim Kumar Bagchi v. Balaji Telefilms Limited, a case addressing the contours of copyright protection in creative works.
Background
The plaintiff, Mr. Ashim Kumar Bagchi, sought an injunction to restrain the release of the film Dream Girl 2, alleging that it infringed his copyright in the scripts Kal Kisne Dekha and The Show Must Go On, both registered with the Copyright Office. He argued that the defendants had unfairly borrowed substantial portions from his scripts and also alleged breach of confidence.
The Court, however, took a different view and dismissed the claim.
Key Findings
1. Common Themes Aren’t Copyrightable
The Court reiterated that copyright law does not protect stock situations, themes, or character types. The plaintiff’s reliance on tropes such as gender disguise and standard character types was held to fall within scènes-à-faire—standard elements of storytelling that belong to the common creative domain and cannot be monopolized.
2. Holistic Comparison over Piecemeal Similarities
The plaintiff’s argument relied on cherry-picking loosely connected scenes from the film and comparing them to his scripts. The Court clarified that infringement cannot be established through such piecemeal comparison. Instead, the overall impression of the works must be assessed.
In doing so, the Court relied upon the landmark Supreme Court decision in R.G. Anand v. Delux Films (1978), which laid down that if the same idea is developed differently, similarities in certain aspects do not amount to infringement unless the viewer gets an unmistakable impression that one work is a copy of the other.
This principle was reinforced in Eastern Book Company v. D.B. Modak (2008), where the Supreme Court held that copyright subsists only in the original expression of an idea, not in the idea itself or in elements dictated by necessity.
3. Confidentiality Claim Rejected
The allegation of breach of confidence was dismissed as unsubstantiated. The plaintiff failed to establish that any original material was shared in circumstances that created a duty of confidentiality. His assertions lacked precision, detail, and evidence.
The Court’s reasoning is in line with Saltman Engineering Co. v. Campbell Engineering Co. (1948), where it was held that to succeed in a confidentiality claim, the claimant must demonstrate both originality of the material and that it was disclosed under circumstances importing an obligation of secrecy.
Analysis
This judgment strengthens three critical principles in Indian copyright jurisprudence:
- Idea–Expression Dichotomy: The decision reaffirms that copyright subsists in the expression of an idea, not in the idea itself, no matter how novel or appealing. Tropes and generic story devices remain outside copyright’s ambit.
- Holistic Approach to Infringement: By rejecting a piecemeal comparison, the Court underscored the importance of evaluating the overall impression of works, thereby discouraging speculative claims based on isolated similarities.
- High Threshold for Confidentiality Claims: Plaintiffs must demonstrate originality, detail, and proof of confidential disclosure. Mere assertions or imaginative grievances are insufficient.
Conclusion
The Bombay High Court’s dismissal of the plaintiff’s claims, coupled with the imposition of costs of ₹2,00,000, serves as a stern reminder to creators and litigants alike. Universal story devices cannot be appropriated under the guise of copyright, and confidentiality claims must be substantiated with evidence.
This case thus reaffirms the balance between protecting genuine creative expression and safeguarding the shared pool of cultural narratives from unwarranted monopolization.
Authored by: Ms. Tishika Mittal
Leave a Reply