Amid all the love and box office numbers “Dhurandhar 2” is garnering, the film ran into trouble when Trimurti Films filed a lawsuit against the producers for using the song “Oye Oye (Tirchi Topi Wale)” in the film. According to a court order last week, the case will be resolved through mediation. On Wednesday, the Delhi High Court recorded director Rajeev Rai’s undertaking to refrain from speaking to the media about the dispute over the song “Dhurandhar” 2 while it was undergoing mediation. Justice Tushar Rao Gedela said Rai continued to make public comments on the case and even on the court proceedings, despite the matter having already been submitted to mediation. The court added that once a litigant approaches the judiciary, they are expected to exercise restraint in publicly discussing matters pending before the courts. Senior counsel Swathi Sukumar, representing Rai, assured the court that her client would refrain from commenting on the matter during the mediation process. Noting this, the court noted that such restraint is essential to prevent disruption to mediation efforts and to avoid escalating the dispute outside the courtroom.
The panel of judges clarified that it has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case at this stage. It also stated that the undertaking will remain in effect until the next hearing, when the matter will be reconsidered. The dispute stems from allegations by Trimurti Films that the song “Rang De Lal (Oye Oye)” in Dhurandhar 2 borrows from Tirchi Topiwala, a track from the 1989 film Tridev, without proper authorization. The defendants have denied these allegations and opposed any interim relief sought. The matter was submitted to mediation last week. Wednesday’s proceedings were triggered by a request from Super Cassette, which alleged that RAI had continued to give interviews after agreeing to mediation, commenting on both the legal process and the merits of the dispute. Senior counsel Akhil Sibal, representing the company, argued that these statements were prejudicial and were negatively impacting the film’s theatrical run. “They are calling us thieves while the matter itself is being heard by this Court,” he said. He further argued that a litigant cannot simultaneously seek relief from the court while making allegations public, adding that such comments amount to spreading a parallel narrative in the media about a matter pending trial. Responding to this, Sukumar stated that the comments were made in anguish and emphasized Rai’s willingness to cooperate in the mediation. “They receive praise every day for being a box office success. Likewise, two people criticizing them won’t bring down the heavens,” he argued, arguing that the defendants should be open to criticism. He also reiterated that Rai had voluntarily agreed to refrain from further public statements during the mediation to facilitate the resolution, while opposing any blanket restriction on freedom of speech. The court, however, noted that while individuals are entitled to their own opinions, making accusations or commenting on an ongoing dispute is inappropriate. He stressed that litigants must place their trust in the judicial process or seek remedies elsewhere, but cannot pursue parallel comments that could influence the proceedings.
