Bar and Bench
January 11
The Delhi High Court today directed makers of film, Chhapaak to give credit to the acid attack survivor, Laxmi Agarwal's lawyer, Aparna Bhat, during the screening of the film.
As per the order, the filmmakers shall acknowledge the contribution to the film made by Advocate Aparna Bhat in the beginning of the film.
Speaking to Bar & Bench, Bhat said,
"I am quite happy with this order passed by the High Court. I think this is even better because unlike the trial court order where the whole credit issue was very innocuous.. here, the Court has very specifically said that it should be in the openning credit and with specific reference to my inputs (to the film).. While I am happy with the order, I am also sad that I had to resort to litigation to get what is due to me rightfully."
Arpana Bhat
The order was pronounced by a Single Judge Bench of Justice Prathiba M Singh in a plea by Chhapaak Producer, Fox Star Studios challenging an order passed by the Trial Court.
Earlier this week, the Court of Additional Senior Civil Judge had ordered Fox, KA Productions and Director Meghna Gulzar to add a slide on the actual footage and the images of the film with the line ‘Aparna Bhat continues to fight the cases of sexual and physical violence against women’ during the screening of the film.
Challening the direction, Fox Star Studio and Director Meghna Gulzar had argued that 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.
A WhatsApp exchange between Bhat and Gulzar was also placed on record toclaim that in fact, Gulzar had not "acknowledged" any person in this film or even in her earlier film 'Talwar'.
The trial court order was also assailed on the ground that no case was made out for the grant of an ad interim ex parte mandatory injunction.
Further in terms of the Bar Council of India Rules, there was a complete bar on Advocates to solicit or advertise their work, directly or indirectly, it was submitted.
Bhat, on the other hand, had argued that the conduct of the film makers amounted to breach of trust and her claim seeking acknowledgement in the film was not only based on promissory estoppel but "something higher".
It was submitted that such assistance was based on Bhat's communication with Gulzar that her contribution would be acknowledged.
comment:
p_commentcount