Don't display RCB jersey in any form in movie: Delhi HC tells makers of Rajnikanth starrer 'Jailer'
New Delhi: The Delhi High Court has issued a directive to the filmmakers of the Rajnikanth-starrer movie "Jailer," stipulating that starting from September 1, none of the theaters should display the jersey of the IPL team Royal Challengers Bangalore (RCB) in any form. This comes in response to a scene in the film where a contract killer is depicted wearing the RCB team jersey.
Regarding the film's release on television, satellite, or any OTT platform, Justice Prathiba M Singh has ordered that an altered version of the movie should be broadcasted or telecasted prior to such releases.
Justice Singh's decision was based on a lawsuit filed by the IPL team, Royal Challengers Sports Private Limited, against the filmmakers. The IPL team raised concerns about scenes in which its jersey was used in a derogatory manner. The contract killer wearing the RCB jersey reportedly made disparaging and misogynistic remarks about a woman in the movie. The RCB contended that the unauthorized use of the jersey in a negative context could damage its brand image and harm its brand equity.
The court observed that after the filing of the lawsuit, the filmmakers and the IPL team engaged in discussions and resolved their disputes. Both parties agreed that the filmmakers would alter the scenes featuring the team jersey to ensure that it is not identifiable as the RCB jersey. This alteration includes removing the primary colors of the RCB jersey and any branding of sponsors present on it.
Additionally, it was resolved that the film's producers would carry out the necessary alterations before releasing the movie on television, satellite, or any OTT platform.
Since the film "Jailer" was already released in theaters on August 10, 2023, the filmmakers are required to make the alterations for theatrical showings by September 1, 2023, as part of the settlement.
Justice Singh has mandated that the filmmakers and all involved parties adhere to the terms and conditions agreed upon by both sides. Due to the settlement reached on the first hearing of the case, the court has directed the full court fee to be refunded to the plaintiff through their counsel.
Advocates Majumder, Priya Adlakha, and Vardaan Anand represented the plaintiff, while advocates Deepak Biswas, Harsh Buch, and Srishti Gupta appeared on behalf of the defendants.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
'I am being framed', claims convict Sanjay Roy in court ahead of sentencing in RG Kar case
Kolkata (PTI): Sanjay Roy, convicted of the rape and murder of an on-duty doctor at the state-run R G Kar Medical College and Hospital, on Monday claimed in a court here that he was innocent and had been "wrongly held guilty".
Roy was on Saturday held guilty of sexually assaulting the doctor and throttling her to death in August last year.
"I am being framed and have not committed any crime. I have not done anything, and still, I have been held guilty," Roy told the court ahead of sentencing in the case.
"I was beaten up in the prison and was forced to sign papers," he added.
Roy was convicted by Judge Anirban Das of the Additional District and Sessions Court, Sealdah under Sections 64, 66, and 103(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) on Saturday.
During the proceedings, the CBI lawyer pleaded for the highest penalty for the convict, calling the crime "rarest of the rare".
"We pray for the highest penalty to maintain people's faith in society," the agency's counsel told the court.
The defence lawyer of Roy argued that the prosecution must provide evidence, which can prove that there is no possibility of reform of the convict.
The defence lawyer prayed for “an alternative punishment other than the death penalty” to allow his reformation.
The lawyer representing the parents of the deceased doctor prayed for the maximum punishment, arguing that Roy, being a civic volunteer, was entrusted with the security of the hospital, but had himself committed the heinous crime on the victim he was supposed to protect.
The hearing of the convict's self-defence and other stakeholders concluded at around 1 pm, and the Judge stated that the sentence would be pronounced at 2:45 pm.
