Aamir Khan Productions v. BSNL: Madras HC Grants Dynamic Injunction

Dispute Before the Court: Protecting Cinematographic Integrity

New to Copyright Law? Start with our complete Copyright Law Guide.

The Madras High Court recently presided over an intellectual property matter concerning the protection of the cinematographic film titled BATWARA 1947. The plaintiff, Aamir Khan Productions Private Limited, initiated legal proceedings against 29 respondents, primarily consisting of internet service providers and various unidentified entities responsible for hosting infringing content. The matter was filed under the case number OA.835/2026, concurrently with C.S (COMM DIV) No. 239 of 2026. The essence of the dispute centers on the unauthorized distribution, reproduction, and streaming of the plaintiff’s copyrighted cinematographic work across various online platforms.

In the digital age, the unauthorized dissemination of films remains a persistent challenge for producers. The plaintiff approached the court seeking to curb the systemic piracy of its film, which threatens the commercial viability and the exclusive ownership rights of the production house. The respondents, including Bharath Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL), represent the gateway through which these infringing activities are facilitated, making them necessary parties in the request for comprehensive injunctive relief.

Relief Sought: Blocking Infringing Channels

The plaintiff sought an ad-interim injunction against the respondents to prevent the continued infringement of their copyright. Specifically, the prayer for relief requested a permanent and interim restraint against the 29 respondents from infringing the cinematographic film BATWARA 1947 by copying, recording, or reproducing the work in any medium. A crucial component of the relief sought was a dynamic blocking order. The plaintiff requested that the court direct the respondents to block all websites, web pages, and future versions of such sites, including those accessible via specific prefixes or suffixes, which facilitate the unauthorized hosting or streaming of the film.

This request for a dynamic injunction highlights the evolving nature of copyright litigation. By targeting both existing websites and future iterations, the plaintiff sought to mitigate the ‘whack-a-mole’ scenario often encountered in online piracy cases, where infringing content simply migrates to new domain names once existing sites are shuttered.

Parties’ Contentions and Evidence

The plaintiff’s case is predicated on its status as the legal owner of the copyright in the cinematographic film BATWARA 1947. To substantiate this claim, the plaintiff submitted formal documentation, most notably the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) certificate. Under the Copyright Act of 1957, a cinematographic film is recognized as a work that enjoys protection, and the producer is generally considered the first owner of the copyright.

The legal framework invoked here relates to Section 51 of the Copyright Act, which defines when a copyright is infringed. An infringement occurs when any person, without a license from the owner of the copyright, does anything the exclusive right to do which is conferred upon the owner. In this instance, the unauthorized streaming and hosting of the film constitute a violation of these exclusive rights. Furthermore, the plaintiff argued that the respondents, by providing the technological infrastructure to access these infringing sites, play a contributory role in the continued violation of the intellectual property rights of the plaintiff.

Court’s Approach

The Hon-ble Mr. Justice K. Surender, presiding over the matter, adopted a direct approach aimed at balancing the immediate need to protect the plaintiff’s proprietary interests with procedural fairness. The court acknowledged the submission of the CBFC certificate as prime facie evidence of the plaintiff’s ownership. The court’s primary focus was on the preservation of the subject matter of the suit, which is the copyrighted film, from further irreparable harm.

In handling requests for ex-parte or interim injunctions, the court examined the nature of the alleged activities. Given that the infringement is occurring in the digital sphere, the court recognized that any delay in granting relief would render the final judgment nugatory. The court’s reliance on established procedural norms was evident in its emphasis on compliance with the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC). Specifically, the court directed the applicant to comply with Order XXXIX, Rule 3 of the CPC. This provision requires that the court, in all cases where an injunction is granted without notice to the opposite party, must record the reasons for its opinion that the object of granting the injunction would be defeated by delay and further mandates that the applicant serve the order and supporting documents to the respondents promptly.

Order of the Court

The Madras High Court granted the prayer for an ad-interim injunction. The operative part of the order restrained the Respondents (Defendants 1 to 29) from infringing the cinematographic film BATWARA 1947. This includes prohibiting them from copying, recording, or reproducing the film through any medium. The court further directed the respondents to implement measures to block all websites and web pages identified in the application that host the film. This directive includes a provision to block future iterations of such websites, specifically addressing domain names that might use identical or similar prefixes or suffixes to bypass standard blocking mechanisms.

To ensure the order is effective and transparent, the court set a follow-up date of 11/ (September 2026, as inferred from the pending case list). The court mandated that the plaintiff serve the relevant papers to the respondents via registered post with an acknowledgement due, ensuring that all parties are properly notified of the judicial intervention.

Also Read: Zee Entertainment v. BSNL: Madras High Court Permits Withdrawal of Copyright Suit

What the Order Means: Practical Implications for Practitioners

This order serves as a reminder of the mechanisms available to right holders to combat digital piracy. The granting of an ad-interim injunction against multiple internet service providers, including a major state-owned entity like BSNL, reaffirms the judiciary’s willingness to enforce copyright protections against intermediaries who facilitate access to infringing content.

For IP lawyers, the case highlights the necessity of robust evidentiary support at the threshold stage. The reliance on the CBFC certificate establishes a clear chain of title that the court can immediately verify. By providing this evidence early, the plaintiff was able to successfully move the court for an interim order. This illustrates the importance of maintaining detailed records of intellectual property ownership, as these documents are the primary tools used to convince a judge of the urgency of a claim.

The directive regarding future websites is a critical detail. In recent years, Indian courts have become more sophisticated in dealing with the dynamic nature of online copyright infringement. By allowing for the blocking of websites beyond those explicitly listed in the initial plaint, the court provides a wider net of protection that reflects the reality of the internet. Practitioners representing plaintiffs should be prepared to draft prayer clauses that are sufficiently broad to cover these future domains, while ensuring that the identification of the initial infringing content remains precise and verifiable.

Compliance with Order XXXIX Rule 3 of the CPC remains a non-negotiable step in obtaining such relief. The order serves as a procedural instruction to the plaintiff to act with diligence in notifying the respondents. Failure to comply with these service requirements can jeopardize the longevity of an interim order. Practitioners must ensure that the proof of service is filed promptly to maintain the momentum of the litigation.

Finally, the involvement of 29 respondents indicates the scale at which the plaintiff felt the infringement was occurring. For legal students and practitioners alike, this demonstrates that copyright litigation in the modern era is often a multi-party affair. It requires coordination between right holders, technology service providers, and the court. The Madras High Court’s willingness to issue such an order demonstrates a consistent judicial policy favoring the protection of creative works, even when the enforcement mechanism requires intervention across a broad spectrum of digital service providers. As digital platforms continue to evolve, the ability to secure such relief will remain a cornerstone of effective intellectual property practice in India.

This case, while routine in its legal basis under the Copyright Act, reinforces the established standards for protecting cinematographic works. It underlines that ownership of copyright, when clearly evidenced, provides a strong basis for obtaining immediate relief against the widespread unauthorized distribution of content. The case will move to its next stage in September, where the court will likely review the progress of the blocking directives and the responses from the named defendants.