- Home
- News
- Articles+
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
- News
- Articles
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
[ By Bobby Anthony ]The Delhi High Court has restrained the makers of the Deepika Padukone starrer ‘Chhapaak’ from releasing without giving credit to the victim's lawyer Aparna Bhat who represented real life acid attack survivor Lakshmi Agarwal in her legal battle.Justice Pratibha M Singh has directed that the restraint will be effective from January 15 for multiplexes and live streaming...
ToRead the Full Story, Subscribe to
Access the exclusive LEGAL ERAStories,Editorial and Expert Opinion
The Delhi High Court has restrained the makers of the Deepika Padukone starrer ‘Chhapaak’ from releasing without giving credit to the victim's lawyer Aparna Bhat who represented real life acid attack survivor Lakshmi Agarwal in her legal battle.
Justice Pratibha M Singh has directed that the restraint will be effective from January 15 for multiplexes and live streaming apps while for other platforms, it would be effective from January 17.
Earlier Fox Star Studios had approached the Delhi High Court against the trial court order directing them to give credits to the contributions of Advocate Aparna Bhat as the lawyer of the real life acid attack survivor.
The filmmakers told the Delhi High Court that Advocate Aparna Bhat had no legal right, statutory or contractual, to seek acknowledgement for her contribution in the film in the form of consultation, inputs and documents.
Senior Advocate Rajiv Nayar appeared for Fox Star Studios while Senior Advocate Sandeep Sethi appeared for filmmaker Meghna Gulzar.
Opposing the claims made by the counsel for the filmmakers, senior advocate Sanjay Parikh said that the conduct of the filmmakers amounted to breach of trust and her claim seeking acknowledgement in the film was not only based on promises but “something higher”.
Senior Advocate Parikh went on to add that real life acid attacker’s Advocate Aparna Bhat had offered her assistance to the making of the film pro bono, pursuant to which substantial changes were made to the film.
Earlier, a Delhi trial court had directed the filmmakers of ‘Chhapaak’ to give due credits to Advocate Aparna Bhat for her contribution in the making of the film.
Additional Senior Civil Judge Dr Pankaj Sharma directed ‘Chhapaak’ director Meghna Gulzar and the makers of the film to mention the advocate's name in the credit roll.
“This court is of the considered view that facts are indicative that the pique of the plaintiff for interim injunction is well-founded and it is necessary that her (Advocate Aparna Bhat’s) contribution be acknowledged by providing the actual footage and the images,” the Delhi High Court ruled.