Salman Khan personality rights row: Kala Hiran producer moves Supreme Court

Producer Amit Jani has approached the Supreme Court challenging a Delhi High Court order that restrained the makers of Kala Hiran: The Battle for Legacy from promoting the film’s teaser and related material amid a personality rights dispute with Bollywood actor Salman Khan.

Jani, of Jani FireFox Films, has challenged the High Court’s July 27 interim order, arguing that the restraint was issued without establishing how the film’s footage specifically infringed or commercially exploited Salman Khan’s persona.

According to ANI, the appeal argued that allowing personality rights to be used in this manner could amount to private censorship of artistic, journalistic and historical expression concerning matters in the public domain.

The petition also warns of a potential “chilling effect” on independent filmmaking, journalism and artistic dramatisation of events that are already part of public discourse.

The dispute began after the teaser for Kala Hiran: The Battle for Legacy was released on July 17. Salman Khan subsequently approached the Delhi High Court, alleging that the promotional material commercially exploited his identity and violated his personality and publicity rights.

Khan’s legal team alleged that the teaser featured a fictional character named Ayan Khan, portrayed as a superstar facing trial over the alleged killing of a blackbuck, PTI reported.

The petition also alleged references to Khan’s films Dabangg and Sikandar, along with details connected to his pending blackbuck poaching case.

On July 27, Justice Jyoti Singh restrained the filmmakers from uploading, hosting, sharing or promoting the teaser and related promotional material across social media, OTT platforms, television and print media.

The court also ordered the removal of existing promotional posts within 24 hours. X, Meta and Google were directed to remove URLs themselves if the makers failed to comply.

The High Court said the promotional material prima facie infringed Khan’s personality rights and could cause irreparable harm to his reputation.

Khan’s legal team argued that the promotional campaign used elements closely associated with the actor without his consent.

They pointed to the fictional character’s name, references to his films and alleged similarities involving his appearance and distinctive traits. The plea also claimed that the teaser portrayed a dramatised courtroom case involving a superstar accused of killing a blackbuck.

Khan further alleged that the promotional material associated him with witness intimidation, the underworld and other damaging allegations.

The filmmakers have repeatedly denied that the film is based on Salman Khan or his 1999 blackbuck poaching case.

In their response to the High Court proceedings, they argued that Khan could not claim ownership over criminal cases, court proceedings, media reports or historical events simply because he was involved in them.

They maintained that Kala Hiran: The Battle for Legacy is not a biopic and argued that personality rights should not be used to remove publicly known events from artistic expression.

Speaking to PTI, Jani said the filmmakers respected the High Court but believed its July 27 decision was unjust. He said the Supreme Court petition seeks restoration of the teaser and interviews that were removed.

Jani also maintained that Salman Khan does not appear in the teaser or film and that Lawrence Bishnoi does not appear in the film either.

He said the filmmakers had therefore challenged the order and sought relief from the Supreme Court.

Khan's case centres on the alleged unauthorised commercial use of his name, image, likeness and distinctive personality traits.

His legal challenge also covers alleged use of identifying features such as his bracelet and ear studs. Khan has sought protection against the use of his persona on social media and e-commerce platforms and has also sought a stay on the film’s release.

The filmmakers, meanwhile, had told the High Court that the film had not yet been submitted to the censor board for certification.

The dispute will now move to the Supreme Court, where Jani is challenging the interim restrictions imposed by the Delhi High Court.

At the heart of the case is a wider legal question: where should courts draw the line between a public figure’s personality rights and artistic or journalistic expression about events already in the public domain?

With inputs from ANI and IANS