New Delhi: Bollywood actor Salman Khan has received a major relief from the Delhi High Court. The court on Monday ordered the removal of all videos from social media platforms related to the film ‘Kala Hiran: The Battle for Legacy’, which allegedly depicts him. The court also reprimanded the film’s producer, Amit Jani, asking if he considered himself above the law. The matter came up after a petition filed by the actor against the film.
What did the court say?
While hearing a petition filed by Salman Khan, the Delhi High Court directed YouTube and X to remove the film’s teaser and other videos related to it. The court said it was necessary to ban content that harms a person’s reputation.
“Reputation once lost is lost,” the Court said, further stating that, “You are linking him with LB. I don’t want to name him.”
During the hearing, filmmaker Amit Jani faced the court’s displeasure. The court sternly questioned whether Jani considered himself above the law. The court also remarked that once a reputation is tarnished, it is extremely difficult to restore it.
What arguments did both sides give?
The lawyer appearing on behalf of the film producer argued that neither Salman Khan’s name has been taken in the teaser of the film nor any kind of AI or deepfake technology has been used.
Meanwhile, the lawyer representing Salman Khan argued that the film indirectly uses the actor’s image. He argued that the lead actor’s face resembles Salman Khan and that he wears the same blue bracelet that is considered Salman’s trademark. This could cause confusion among viewers.
What did the court say to the film’s producer?
While addressing Amit Jani’s counsel, the Delhi High Court said that, “Your audacity seems to have increased because no order was passed the last time.”
“You seem to think you are above the law. Your conduct is getting worse by the day. You cannot treat even an ordinary citizen in this manner,” the court added.
What did Salman Khan say in the petition?
Salman Khan, in his petition, alleged that the film was using his identity and image without permission. He alleged that the film linked him to the blackbuck poaching case, which was misleading and damaging to his reputation.
The court also admitted during the hearing that linking a person with a case that affects his image is a serious matter and it should be banned.
