IN CS. 914 OF 2010 - MADR HC- Madras High Court dismisses allegations against Director S. Sankar for stealing storyline of blockbuster 2010 film ‘Enthiran’ starring Rajinikanth
Justice S. Sounthar [15-06-2023]

Read Order: Aarur Tamilnadan v S. Sankar

Simran Singh

New Delhi, June 20, 2023: The Madras High Court has dismissed a civil suit filed by veteran journalist, writer and poet Aarur Tamilnadan (plaintiff) against director S. Sankar (defendant) claiming that the script of 2010 blockbuster hit ‘Enthiran’ starring Rajinikanth was stolen from a story written by him under the title ‘Jugiba’ in 1996.

The High Court held that it did not find any merit in the civil suit, since the plaintiff had failed to prove his case that the defendants' story ‘Enthiran’ was the pirated version of plaintiff's story ‘Jugiba’. Thus, the suit was dismissed in favour of the defendant and the plaintiff was accordingly directed to pay the cost of the suit to the defendant.

In the case at hand, the plaintiff sought a declaration that he was the first owner of the copyright of the story ‘Enthiran’ which was stolen/pirated from the original story ‘Jugiba’ written and published in April 1996. The plaintiff also sought for further declaration that the film ‘Enthiran’ was the infringing copy of the plaintiff story ‘Jugiba’ and for a consequential injunction restraining the defendants from distributing, screening and exhibiting, infringing copy namely the feature film ‘Enthiran’. The plaintiff also prayed for direction to the defendants to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,00,000/- towards damages and sought for preliminary decree directing the defendants to render true account of the profit earned by them by infringing the copyright of the plaintiff and for a final decree in favour of plaintiff for the amount of profits thus found to have been earned by the defendants.

The Bench stated that a close reading of evidence made it clear that there were a number of dissimilarities between the story ‘Jugiba and the story of defendant’s film ‘Enthiran’. The plaintiff admitted during the course of evidence that the defendants had made additions to the story to suit the cinema audience.  The Bench while referring to the Supreme Court case of R.G.Anand v. M/s. Delux Films stated that it was a settled law, that nobody could claim any copyright over an idea or concept. The copyright could be claimed only in respect of the manner of expression of idea or concept. Thus, even though both the story of the plaintiff and the defendant were based on Humanoid Robots but the defendant's film ‘Enthiran’ appeared to have been presented to the audience with a different expression.

“When both the stories are based on the same idea namely Humanoid robot falling in love with a human being, similarities, are bound to occur. As held by the Apex Court in R.G.Anand Vs. M/s. Delux Films and others, it is for the Courts to determine, whether the similarities are fundamental or substantial aspects of the mode of expression. ”

The Court stated that the plaintiff had not examined any independent witnesses to prove that the similarities in the story of the plaintiff and the story of the defendants' film ‘Enthiran’ were so fundamental to make it as a literal imitation of plaintiff''s story. “He could have examined independent witness, who had read his story and watched the defendants' movie to establish that the defendants' story is nothing but a literal imitation of plaintiff's story. For the reason best known to the plaintiff, he failed to examine any independent witnesses. Therefore, except the interested testimony of PW.1, there is no evidence available on record to show that the story of the defendants movie is literal imitation of plaintiff's story.”

The Bench was of the view that there was not a single acceptable evidence available on record except the interested oral testimony of the plaintiff that the story line of the defendants' film was a literal imitation of plaintiff’s story. “The plaintiff has not produced any material to compare the story line of the defendants with that of the plaintiff. At the minimum, the plaintiff should have issued a notice to the defendants calling upon them to produce the story line or script of the defendants' story "Enthiran". The plaintiff has not made any such attempt to enable the Court to compare the story line…”