The Karnataka High Court questioned Darshan Srinivas’s claim that the Kannada film BOSS could affect the fairness of his Renukaswamy murder trial. Justice Pradeep Singh Yerur observed that the concern should be possible impact on witnesses and proceedings, not whether judges could be influenced.
The Karnataka High Court on Tuesday questioned the argument advanced on behalf of actor Darshan Srinivas that the release of the Kannada film BOSS could interfere with the fairness of the criminal trial pending against him in connection with the Renukaswamy murder case.
Justice Pradeep Singh Yerur was hearing a petition filed by Darshan Srinivas and his wife Vijayalakshmi Darshan, who sought restoration of an interim order restraining the release of the film. The petition was filed against the filmmakers, with the appellants alleging that the movie closely resembles the events connected to the criminal case in which Darshan is one of the accused.
The argument led the Karnataka High Court to examine whether the defence was suggesting that judges could be influenced by a film. Justice Yerur questioned this assumption, observing that the main concern should instead be whether the movie could impact witnesses or the ongoing trial process.
The controversy stems from the allegations that BOSS is based on events similar to the Renukaswamy murder case, in which actor Darshan is facing criminal proceedings.
The accused have consistently maintained their right to a fair trial and have raised concerns about factors that may affect the proceedings. The latest petition before the High Court focuses on whether a film allegedly resembling a pending criminal matter can be released while the trial is underway.
The petitioners argued that the film contains elements similar to the ongoing murder trial and could create prejudice against the accused. According to their submission, the movie allegedly portrays circumstances resembling the Renukaswamy murder case and may influence public perception as well as the judicial process.
During the hearing, Darshan’s counsel pointed out that the film does not merely depict an incident but also shows a courtroom trial, recording of evidence and delivery of a judgment.
The counsel submitted that the movie portrays the main character being acquitted after the trial and later entering politics by becoming an MLA. According to the appellants, such a storyline could impact the pending proceedings.
The lawyer argued that since the actual criminal trial is currently progressing on a day-to-day basis, with hearings taking place four days a week, the release of such a film at this stage could potentially influence witnesses connected with the case. He further submitted that an accused has a fundamental right not only to a fair trial but also to a verdict delivered by a court free from external influence.
During the hearing, the counsel appearing for Darshan raised concerns that the release of the film could affect the fairness of the ongoing criminal proceedings. He argued that since the movie reportedly depicts a courtroom trial, evidence recording and a final judgment, it could influence the atmosphere surrounding the case and potentially impact the witnesses who are part of the trial. The counsel stressed that an accused has a right not only to a fair trial but also to a verdict delivered without any external pressure or influence.
The submission led the High Court to question whether the argument implied that judges could also be influenced by watching the film. Justice Pradeep Singh Yerur questioned the basis of the claim and remarked,
“‘Cool-minded verdict from the court.’ You mean to say the judges are hot-headed? Get influenced by the movie? I don’t know how many of them watch it also,”.
The counsel thereafter clarified that his concern was not about judges being affected by the film but about the possibility that witnesses or other aspects of the trial could be influenced by its release.
The appellants also highlighted certain aspects of the movie which, according to them, establish a connection with the pending criminal proceedings.
ALSO READ: Bengaluru Court Rejects Actress Pavithra Gowda’s Bail Plea in Renukaswamy Murder Case
They pointed out that the film begins with the disclaimer “Based on real events” and carries the tagline “Satyameva Jayate,” claiming that these references could lead viewers to associate the film with the real-life criminal case involving Darshan.
The petitioners further alleged that the film negatively portrays Darshan’s wife. They argued that the protagonist’s wife in the movie is named “Lakshmi,” which they claimed was similar to Vijayalakshmi’s name, and that the film also includes a girlfriend character with a comparable name. The appellants described these similarities as an attempt to connect the fictional story with real individuals involved in the case.
Earlier, the film’s producer had given an undertaking that the movie would not be released immediately. During the hearing, Darshan’s counsel requested the Court to issue a direction ensuring that the undertaking remains in force. However, the Court declined to pass a formal order on the issue.
The judge stated:
“No need of recording it. I am not passing any order. They have said that they will not (release the film),”
The Court thereafter decided to continue hearing the matter and adjourned the case until July 3.
Senior Advocate Vivek Subbareddy appeared on behalf of the filmmakers.
The High Court’s further consideration will examine the balance between artistic freedom, film release rights and the accused person’s constitutional guarantee of a fair trial.
Case Title: Darshan Srinivas Vs Siri Productions
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE