E-Paper
Give lawyer credit: Delhi HC to Chhapaak makers
The court was hearing a plea by the producers of the film, challenging a trial court order of January 9 which had directed them to give credits to Bhat. When contact, the producers’ lawyer refused to comment.
The Delhi high court on Saturday directed the makers of Deepika Padukone-starrer ‘Chhappaak’ to give credits to advocate Aparna Bhat, who represented the acid attack survivor Laxmi Agarwal on whose life the movie is based, by January 15 failing which the film would be taken off theatres.
Justice Pratibha M Singh restrained the producers, Fox Studios, from releasing the film on any electronic medium.
“.... since the film has been released on January 10 both internationally and India, in order to ensure that there is no disruption in screening, it is directed that the film shall not exhibited in theatres with effect from January 15 without giving the credit in the digital copies of the film’s opening credit slides,” the judge said in the order.
The court was hearing a plea by the producers of the film, challenging a trial court order of January 9 which had directed them to give credits to Bhat. When contact, the producers’ lawyer refused to comment.
The high court noted that the producers had approached Bhat regarding the history of the case and trial proceedings. Bhat, the court noted, also gave the documents related to the case. “She has therefore helped in maintaining the integrity and credibility of the film itself, in respect of the legal journey of the victim,” the court said.
Advocate Bhat, through advocate Sanjay Parikh, contended that the film producers contacted her and sent her the draft screenplay of the film.
The counsel for the producers, however, said that the trial court had erred in its order of January 9 which had directed the makers to give credits to the lawyer, and has gone beyond its jurisdiction to pass an order.
“There is no doubt that non-acknowledgment of the contribution of the plaintiff is contrary to what was represented to her since the inception of making of the film,” the court added.
“In absence of a contract and payment of consideration, her efforts, skill and labour cannot vest with the producer completely gratuitously,” the court said.
