A Delhi court Thursday directed the makers of Deepika Padukone starer 'Chhapaak' to give credit to the lawyer of acid attack survivor Laxmi Agarwal, on whose life the movie is based, for sharing "necessary inputs" with the director.
Additional Senior Civil Judge Pankaj Sharma said it is necessary that advocate Aparna Bhat's contribution is acknowledged.
"The facts disclosed that plaintiff (Bhat) has rendered her contribution in form of constitution, necessary inputs and documentations of the making of the film to its director," he said.
The court passed the order after Bhat submitted that movie's director, Meghna Guljar, had acknowledged her contribution in writing, assuring her that her name would be reflected in writing while screening of the film.
However, the director skipped the agreement while screening the film, the advocate said.
"This Court is of the considered view that facts are indicative that the plea of the plaintiff for interim injunction is well founded and it is necessary that her contribution be acknowledged by providing on the slide on the actual footage and the images, the line 'Aparna Bhat continues to fight the cases of sexual and physical violence against women' during the screening of the film.
"The said line on screen may be with a rider that the same is with the court order," the judge said.
The court further said that it was also necessary from the prospective of the viewers as they deserve to know the source of the legal inputs and the guidance provided by the plaintiff.
Noting the documents related to an earlier agreement between Bhat and Gulzar, the court said, "Plaintiff is in her legitimate right to compel the defendant to show her contribution during the screening of the film as such right is embedded in agreement which is evident from the templet acknowledging her contribution and communication effected between the parties."
The judge said: "If ad interim injunction directing the defendant to show on actual footage and image the line 'Aparna Bhat continues to fight cases of sexual and physical violence against women' is not granted, the grave prejudice, injustice would be caused to her as the screening of the film without it would prevent the general public from knowing the said contribution of the plaintiff."
He added that "non-inclusion of the plaintiff's contribution during the screening of the film would cause irreparable damage to her."
Disclaimer: No Business Standard Journalist was involved in creation of this content
You’ve reached your limit of {{free_limit}} free articles this month.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
Already subscribed? Log in
Subscribe to read the full story →
Smart Quarterly
₹900
3 Months
₹300/Month
Smart Essential
₹2,700
1 Year
₹225/Month
Super Saver
₹3,900
2 Years
₹162/Month
Renews automatically, cancel anytime
Here’s what’s included in our digital subscription plans
Exclusive premium stories online
Over 30 premium stories daily, handpicked by our editors


Complimentary Access to The New York Times
News, Games, Cooking, Audio, Wirecutter & The Athletic
Business Standard Epaper
Digital replica of our daily newspaper — with options to read, save, and share


Curated Newsletters
Insights on markets, finance, politics, tech, and more delivered to your inbox
Market Analysis & Investment Insights
In-depth market analysis & insights with access to The Smart Investor


Archives
Repository of articles and publications dating back to 1997
Ad-free Reading
Uninterrupted reading experience with no advertisements


Seamless Access Across All Devices
Access Business Standard across devices — mobile, tablet, or PC, via web or app
