Bombay High Court rejects copyright claim in case involving gender disguise in movie plot

On August 6, 2025, the Bombay High Court ruled in favour of Indian production house Balaji Telefilms in the copyright infringement case filed bywriter-directorAshim Kumar Bagchi. 

According to Bagchi, Balaji Telefilms’ comedy-drama film Dream Girl 2, released in 2023, had similarities to his script, Kal Kisne Dekha. The script, registered in 2007, was intended to be made into a movie. Both works featured characters in gender disguise or gender swapping situations.

The Bombay High Court found that Dream Girl 2 and Kal Kisne Dekha are two entirely different and distinct works.

According to Manisha Singh, co-founder and partner at LexOrbis in New Delhi, the judgment is a clear reaffirmation that copyright does not extend to ideas, concepts or themes in isolation. What is protected is the original expression of the idea. “In this case, the plaintiff sought to claim copyright over the broad theme of gender disguise, but the court held that such tropes fall within the realm of scènes à faire or stock elements, which remain unprotectable,” she explained. 

Singh added that the ruling also underscores the importance of viewing works holistically rather than through a piecemeal comparison. “The court held that minor overlaps in generic plot points cannot establish infringement if the overall treatment, setting and characters are materially different. This approach prevents monopolization of common cultural and narrative devices, hence safeguarding creative freedom for future filmmakers and writers,” she said.

Judge Riyaz Iqbal Chagla’s decision noted significant differences between the plaintiff’s script and the defendants’ film, as outlined in the written submissions of Defendant No. 1 at Pages 30-32. The submissions explained:

1.The plaintiff’s script is set in Mumbai and centres on the Bollywood film industry, whereas the defendants’ film takes place in the small town of Mathura.

2.The plaintiff’s script primarily unfolds on film sets, shoot locations, film functions and other places connected with Bollywood, whereas the defendants’  film takes place in various locations unrelated to Bollywood, including characters’ residences, the bar where the protagonist works, etc.

3.The plaintiff’s script follows the protagonist striving to break into Bollywood and achieve success as an actor, whereas the defendants’ film focuses on the protagonist’s desire to marry his girlfriend.

4.The defendants’ film includes an important sub-plot involving the protagonist’s friend, which has no counterpart in the plaintiff’s script. 

5.The endings differ: in the plaintiff’s script, the protagonist wins both male and female acting awards at a film ceremony and reveals his identity, whereas in the defendants’ film, the protagonist reveals his identity at the female lead’s wedding to another man while explaining his motivations.

Bagchi also accused the writer of Dream Girl 2 of breach of confidence. He related that he disclosed the contents of Kal Kisne Dekha with the Dream Girl 2 writer in confidence with the objective of finding a producer for the movie based on the script.

The Bombay High Court also dismissed this accusation.

“The court was categorical that a plaintiff must precisely identify what constitutes ‘confidential information’ and show how it was misused. Vague or shifting pleadings, as in this case, weaken the claim.

The case highlights the importance of consistency and credibility. The judgment strikes a balance between protecting genuine originality and allowing common ideas and cultural motifs to remain free for creative expression,” said Singh.