The Karnataka High Court recently scrutinized a plea by actor Darshan Srinivas, who sought to delay the release of the Kannada film ‘BOSS’, arguing it might compromise the fairness of his ongoing criminal trial. The case, Darshan Srinivas Vs Siri Productions, was presided over by Justice Pradeep Singh Yerur.
The appeal, filed by Darshan and his wife Vijayalakshmi Darshan, requested the reinstatement of an interim injunction to halt the film’s release. The appellants contend that the storyline of ‘BOSS’ closely parallels the Renukaswamy murder case, in which Darshan stands accused, potentially jeopardizing his right to an impartial trial.
During a recent hearing, Darshan’s legal representative argued that the film portrays a trial, complete with evidence presentation and a judgment, after which the protagonist is acquitted and becomes an MLA. The counsel expressed concern that the film’s narrative might sway witnesses, especially as the criminal trial is in session four days a week. Moreover, the defense stressed an accused’s fundamental right to a fair trial and an unbiased verdict.
However, Justice Yerur challenged this argument, questioning if it implied that judges could be influenced by cinematic portrayals. “You mean to say the judges are hot-headed? Get influenced by the movie? I don’t know how many of them watch it also,” the judge remarked, highlighting skepticism about the claim.
The counsel clarified that their primary concern was the potential influence on witnesses rather than judges. The appellants pointed out that the film opens with the disclaimer “Based on real events” and uses the tagline “Satyameva Jayate”, which might reinforce connections to the real-life case.
More Read
Additionally, the appellants argued that the film unjustly associates Darshan’s wife by naming the protagonist’s spouse ‘Lakshmi’, reminiscent of Vijayalakshmi Darshan. Furthermore, a character with a girlfriend bearing a similar name was deemed absurd by the appellants.
The Court decided to further deliberate the issue and scheduled the next hearing for July 3. Notably, the film’s producer had previously agreed not to proceed with the release at this time, a decision the appellants hoped the court would formally uphold. However, Justice Yerur declined to issue such an order, noting, “No need of recording it. I am not passing any order. They have said that they will not (release the film).”
Senior Advocate Vivek Subbareddy represented the filmmakers in court.
