The court said, “Article 19(1)(a) is a fundamental right of freedom of speech and expression of a person to demonstrate a creation, imagination and conceptualisation of peace of art and movie based on fiction. Even if there are certain similarities, freedom of speech and expression as provided under Article 19(1) cannot be curtailed unless it violates/breaches the requirement of Article 19 (2), i.e., the imposition of a reasonable restriction on such an expression of art”.

Thoogudeepa and his wife had challenged a June 2 order of the trial court based on an application filed by Siri Productions, the producer of the movie. BOSS, directed by Lava V and produced by Siri Productions, was scheduled to be released on April 24. But the trial court had temporarily restrained its release, following the actor’s intervention.

The actor argued that the trial court committed a grave constitutional error by treating the producer’s and director’s right to cinematic expression under Article 19(1)(a) as effectively superseding the plaintiffs’ non-derograble right to a fair trial and right to privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Moreover, a full-length feature film with an “Inspired by True Events” declaration is infinitely more prejudicial than a media report, he told the High Court.

‘BOSS’ a generic word, say movie makers

However, the movie makers argued that the content in the movie has no resemblance to any person’s life or events in any manner and stated that the movie has received the necessary certification from the  Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) after a proper review, and the title of the movie, ‘BOSS ’, is a generic word.

The bench noted that the whole movie is not a life story of Darshan Thoogudeepa, but it has content similar to certain incidents that have taken place in the criminal case against him. The events as depicted are taken from information available in the public domain.

Referring to the CBFC certification for the film, the court held that once the statutory authority, which is an expert body, after evaluation has issued certification for the release and screening of the movie, then “the court should not sit as a Super Censor Board over the expert body, which has evaluated the movie after proper verification and after putting certain restrictions.”

‘No violation of right to privacy’

The bench in the order emphasised that pursuant to Thoogudeepa being implicated in the criminal case, the press and electronic media have been reporting the case based on court hearings and may be based on the investigation on a daily basis.

“Therefore, a lot of materials with regard to plaintiff No.1’s (Thoogudeepa’s) criminal case are in the public domain. When such being the case, it cannot be said that there is any infringement of the constitutional right of privacy of the plaintiffs being infringed,” the bench said.

Further, it added, “Merely because a movie is released depicting a few instances, which may be similar to the ongoing trial, it cannot be said that the courts dealing with such criminal trials would be influenced or swayed away by such depiction of art or similarities in the movie to decide the merits of the criminal trial.”

Stating that making a movie is not as simple as it is to watch a movie, the court said the process involves a lot of thinking. The court added, “There are a lot of financial investments in the making of a movie and stopping or curtailing the release of the movie would have severe financial implications, loss and consequences.”

Dismissing the appeal, the court held, “The appellants have not made out any good ground to interfere with the well-reasoned order passed by the trial court.”

Renukaswamy, a fan of Thoogudeepa, was allegedly murdered over sending lewd comments to the actor’s friend Pavitra Gowda on Instagram. His body was discovered near a stormwater drain in Bengaluru in June 2024.