On 6th November, the bench of Justice M.S. Ramachandra Rao and Justice T. Amarnath Goudheard an appeal filed by Ram Gopal Verma challenging District Court order dated 24thAugust, stalling the release of the film and also the promo of the film on YouTube.
The movie is based on the true story of the life tragedy happened with the respondent where her own father has assassinated her husband (Pranay Perumalla) which cause immediate death due to several injuries. In 2018, a Dalit youth Pranay Perumalla was killed in broad daylight in an alleged hate crime by killers hired by his father-in-law.
After releasing the trailer of the movie ‘Murder’, the respondent Amurtha found that the storyline & concept of the film is purely based on her real-life story. Moreover, the character’s names are same as of her original name.
Based on which the respondent has filed a petition in District court, Nalgonda, praying that this motion picture was made by the appellant herein is on the life of her and has alleged that the movie was made without her consent collecting the real-life story, photographs & videos of herself and her deceased husband from various sources illegally with a dishonest intention to cause insult and to defame her in public violating right to privacy provided under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
Upon hearing the matter, the trial court ordered that if film is allowed to be exhibited, then would cause serious prejudice to her and to her family members with irreparable loss. And it was held that appellant herein was a purely commercial venture.
Following which, the appellant Ram Gopal Verma has filed an appeal before the TelanganaHigh Court. And the court has given a green signal for the release of Telugu Film ‘Murder’ with certain guidelines to be implemented before releasing the movie.
In its order, the High Court has noted that “the events which have occurred in her life i.e., the alleged murder of her husband are admitted by her to be in the public domain. The counsel for the respondent did not deny that there was also a wide range reporting in the local newspapers and cable TV channels about these events. Thus, this information was in the public domain.”
Further, the court has said that the events occurred in the respondent’s life is not a unique to her and her family alone. And the same is in the public domain, she cannot plead any violation of the right to privacy by the appellants in making a movie based on such events. Hence, the trial court failed to consider this aspect while passing the impugned order. So, its order cannot be sustained.
Consequently, the Court has directed the appellants to not use or refer any original name of the respondent or her family member or the captions mentioned on Twitter, Social media, anywhere in the movie ‘Murder’ and also on any printing material (posters).
In this context, the Court also directed to publish a disclaimer that “Movie is a work of fiction and any resemblance to real-life events is purely coincidental and unintended.”
