Gurugram: Akshay Kumar’s attempt to get his name struck off from a defamation lawsuit has hit a wall. The Delhi HC registry has dismissed applications seeking deletion of names of the actor and the cinema chains PVR and INOX from a defamation lawsuit filed by Bata India over a scene in the 2017 film Jolly LLB 2 that allegedly mocked the footwear brand.
Joint Registrar (Judicial) Dr Ajay Gulati ruled that for the fair adjudication of the suit, all three defendants remain necessary parties, thereby dismissing their pleas to be absolved of the case ongoing since 2017. Though PVR and INOX merged in 2023, they are named separately in the lawsuit since it was filed before the merger.
The registry’s order means that Kumar and the theatre chain owners will face trial for their alleged role in damaging Bata’s reputation. The suit goes back to 2017, when Bata took offence to a scene in the Jolly LLB 2 trailer. In it, Annu Kapoor’s character sneered at Akshay Kumar’s character by referring to his “Bata footwear” as cheap.
The Hindi dialogue called out “Bata” by name.
The footwear company contended that the dialogue was meant to convey that the “brand was worn only by lower strata of society and one should feel humiliated if one wears Bata footwear”. Before the film’s theatrical release, the court had granted a permanent injunction against usage of the name Bata. The filmmakers agreed to change the dialogue before the movie hit theatres and swapped “Bata” for “phata (torn)”.
But the damage had already been done. The trailer had played in cinemas and online, racking up hundreds of thousands of views. Bata said the exposure couldn’t be undone and wanted compensation for the hit on its reputation.
Also Read: No FIR without aggrieved party’s plaint—Telangana HC on cases over social media posts, speeches
Why Akshay Kumar remains party
While deciding the applications, the HC registry found multiple grounds to keep the lead actor in the suit, despite his not speaking the offending dialogue. The registry noted that Kumar is a brand ambassador for Relaxo/Sparx, a rival footwear company, raising questions about a potential conspiracy to harm Bata’s commercial interests.
“The allegation of conspiracy gains traction” given Kumar’s endorsement deal and his own trademark registration for the brand name Khiladi in the footwear category, the order states. It observes that it was peculiar that Bata was chosen for the derogatory reference when Kumar’s character wasn’t even shown wearing Bata shoes in that scene.
The registry further held that Kumar’s act of tweeting the trailer constituted an “independent tort of defamation”. Citing the judgment in Arvind Kejriwal vs State and Another, the registry ruled that those who share or retweet defamatory content on social media can be held liable, particularly given Kumar’s massive following as a “megastar”.
The registry also considered evidence suggesting Kumar’s involvement in film production. The actor had once claimed in a TV interview that he produces 90 percent of the films he acts in. Media reports also suggested he took a profit-sharing deal for Jolly LLB 2, the order notes.
While Kumar insisted that he was not involved in the production of the film, the registry felt the details raised enough questions to warrant a full trial.
Why cinema chains remain party
Both PVR and Inox sought deletion, claiming they merely exhibited a certified film and had contractual obligations to screen the trailer.
The registry rejected their defence that Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) approval to the film absolved them of liability. “The probative value of the certificate cannot be accepted at face value and will be a matter of trial,” states the order.
It noted that both the cinema chains continued exhibiting the trailer even after receiving legal notice from Bata, until restrained by court orders. During this period, “lakhs of cine goers watched the movie trailer”.
PVR’s case looked particularly weak because it refused to produce the distribution agreement that it claimed forced its hand. “There is no way for the court to determine the merit in this plea,” wrote the judge.
The court also noted that neither chain bothered responding to Bata’s notice or even reaching out to the film’s producers to figure out what to do. That silence, combined with continued screenings, suggests they can’t just blame the censor board and walk away.
“Even if the agreement is not to be placed on record at all, the applicant should have at least communicated with the plaintiff when it received a notice,” the order states, noting the absence of any correspondence with producers or distributors about stopping the trailer.
For INOX, which claimed it didn’t display English subtitles that translated “Bata” as “cheap footwear”, the registry held it as a factual matter requiring trial, as Bata contended the Hindi dialogue itself was defamatory.
(Edited by Nida Fatima Siddiqui)
Also Read: Meant to tackle pirated DVDs, ‘Ashok Kumar orders’ are now potent weapon in defamation cases