Copyright disputes in the film industry are not new, but they continue to test the delicate balance between intellectual property rights and commercial interests. The recent Bombay High Court decision in Sandeep Gangatkar v. Sandeep Kewlani & Ors.[1] concerning the film Sky Force is yet another instance where a writer has alleged copyright infringement against a major film production. The plaintiff, Sandeep Gangatkar, claimed that the story of Sky Force was lifted from his script Fire Bird, which he had shared with one of the defendants in 2014. However, the court refused to grant an injunction, primarily citing the delay in the plaintiff’s approach and the existence of substantial information about the movie in the public domain since October 2023.
The case raises critical questions about how Indian courts handle last-minute copyright claims, especially when a film is on the brink of release. While the judiciary has historically been cautious about disrupting major film releases at the eleventh hour, this often leaves independent writers and creators in a vulnerable position. The ruling underscores the growing concern that copyright enforcement mechanisms might not always favour those who create original content but rather those who capitalize on it with stronger legal and financial backing.
This blog critically examines the judgment, questioning whether the court’s emphasis on procedural delay overshadowed the merits of the copyright claim. It also explores the larger implications for filmmakers, writers, and the entertainment industry in India.
Background of the Case
The dispute revolves around Sky Force, a film set to release on January 24, 2025, which the plaintiff, Sandeep Gangatkar, claims is based on his original script, Fire Bird. According to Gangatkar, Fire Bird was a literary work he had created around historical events, particularly the 1965 India-Pakistan war and an air raid conducted by the Indian Air Force (IAF) on Sargodha, Pakistan. He alleges that he shared this script with Defendant No. 1 (Sandeep Kewlani) in 2014 as part of a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU). However, without his consent, the defendants allegedly used his work to create Sky Force.
The plaintiff only became aware of the alleged infringement on January 8, 2025, when the official trailer of Sky Force was released. Upon confronting the defendants, there were initial discussions, but by January 17, 2025, they outright denied his claims. This led Gangatkar to urgently move the Bombay High Court seeking ad-interim relief to restrain the release of the film.
The defendants countered this by arguing that the plaintiff had been aware of the movie since at least October 2023, when the film’s teaser was publicly released. Additionally, multiple news articles and social media posts had explicitly discussed Sky Force‘s storyline. They contended that if the plaintiff genuinely believed his copyright was being violated, he should have approached the court much earlier instead of waiting until the last moment. Relying on judicial precedents, they argued that courts should not entertain last-minute injunctions against films, as this disrupts the entire industry and causes significant financial losses.
The case raised critical questions on copyright law, including the protection of original scripts, the role of public domain knowledge, and the timing of legal interventions in intellectual property disputes. The judgment ultimately hinged not on whether the film actually copied Fire Bird, but on whether the plaintiff had delayed seeking legal remedies.
Judicial Precedents and Legal Principles
The Bombay High Court, in rejecting the plaintiff’s request for an injunction against the release of Sky Force, relied heavily on previous judicial precedents that have shaped the Indian judiciary’s approach to last-minute copyright claims in the film industry. The ruling aligns with the courts’ increasing reluctance to grant ad-interim relief when plaintiffs approach at the eleventh hour, particularly in cases where the disputed content has already been in the public domain for a significant period.
Key Cases Cited by the Court
- Sushila Sharma v. Madhur Bhandarkar[2] (2009)
- The court noted the growing tendency of plaintiffs to file copyright claims just before a film’s release, which could be viewed as blackmail actions against major production houses.
- The ruling emphasized that mere denial of relief might not be enough, and if plaintiffs engage in frivolous or bad-faith litigation, courts should consider sanctions for false claims.
- Sai Paranjpaye v. PLA Entertainment Pvt. Ltd.[3] (2013)
- The plaintiff in this case sought an injunction just before the release of a film she claimed was copied from her work.
- The court rejected the claim on the grounds of delay, stating that plaintiffs must act promptly upon discovering potential infringement.
- Importantly, the court also highlighted that plaintiffs who quantify their damages in monetary terms (as the plaintiff did in the Sky Force case) should seek compensation rather than injunctive relief.
- Dashrath B. Rathod v. Fox Star Studios India Pvt. Ltd.[4] (2018)
- The court strongly discouraged the practice of approaching courts just days before a film’s release, calling it an unfair legal strategy.
- The ruling stated that courts should not prioritize last-minute claims over other important judicial matters, especially when plaintiffs were aware of the film’s development but chose to remain silent.
- The judgment made a key distinction: If the plaintiff had no prior knowledge of the alleged infringement, courts could consider an exception. However, in most cases where plaintiffs were aware but deliberately delayed action, courts should refuse relief.
Balancing Copyright and Commercial Interests
Indian courts have increasingly leaned towards protecting commercial interests in film-related copyright disputes, particularly when substantial investments have been made. The entertainment industry involves complex financial arrangements, including:
- Third-party contracts for distribution, music, and promotions.
- Large-scale investments from production houses and financiers.
- Public expectations and theatre bookings, leading to financial loss if release dates are postponed.
While copyright law exists to protect original creators, courts have consistently ruled that they must exercise due diligence and act promptly if they suspect infringement. The Bombay High Court’s stance in the Sky Force case reinforces the idea that delayed copyright claims can cause unnecessary disruptions to commercial projects and that monetary compensation, rather than injunctions, is often the more appropriate remedy.
This approach, however, raises concerns about whether large production houses are unfairly advantaged, as independent writers may lack the legal resources to detect and challenge potential infringements early on. The judgment, therefore, reflects the continuing tension between protecting creative rights and ensuring the smooth functioning of the entertainment industry.
Analysis of the Judgment
The Bombay High Court’s ruling in the Sky Force case primarily hinged on the delay in filing the suit, rather than the merits of the copyright infringement claim. While the plaintiff, Sandeep Gangatkar, argued that Sky Force was a direct copy of his script, Fire Bird, the court dismissed his request for an injunction, emphasizing that he had ample time to approach the court but failed to do so in a timely manner.
1. Delay as a Key Factor
A central aspect of the court’s reasoning was that the plaintiff had been aware of Sky Force‘s production since October 2023, when the film’s teaser was publicly released. Additionally, multiple news articles and social media posts had explicitly discussed the storyline of the film, including key details about the 1965 Indo-Pak war, the airstrike on Sargodha, and the posthumous Maha Vir Chakra awarded to Squadron Leader Devayya, all of which formed the core of the plaintiff’s script.
Despite this, the plaintiff only filed the suit in January 2025, after watching the film’s trailer, which he claimed provided direct evidence of copying. The court rejected this argument, ruling that if the plaintiff genuinely believed that Sky Force was based on Fire Bird, he should have acted months earlier. This aligns with judicial precedents, which have consistently held that filmmakers should not be subjected to last-minute legal challenges, especially when the plaintiff had prior knowledge of the disputed work.
2. The Role of Public Domain Knowledge in Copyright Disputes
The judgment also reinforced the principle that historical events cannot be copyrighted, and if substantial details about a film’s storyline are already in the public domain, a copyright claim based on those elements may not hold.
The plaintiff’s script was based on historical facts from the 1965 war, and the defendants successfully argued that they had independently researched and developed Sky Force without using the plaintiff’s work. The court examined news reports, social media posts, and film announcements that had been publicly available since 2023, concluding that the plaintiff could not claim ignorance of the film’s subject matter.
This reasoning reflects an important limitation of copyright law, while original creative expressions are protected, the underlying historical facts and general themes are not. The ruling sets a precedent for future cases, signalling that courts will scrutinize whether an alleged infringement involves truly unique creative elements or widely known historical information.
3. Financial Implications for Film Producers
The court also considered the financial stakes involved in halting a film’s release at the last minute. According to the defendants, over ₹250 crore had been invested in the film, and:
- Theatrical rights had already been sold, with over 2,500 domestic screens booked.
- Distribution and music rights had been assigned, involving multiple stakeholders.
- Marketing campaigns and promotions had been running for months, creating commercial expectations.
Granting an injunction at such a late stage would have caused severe financial losses, not just for the defendants but also for third-party distributors, theatre owners, and investors. Courts in previous cases, including Dashrath B. Rathod v. Fox Star Studios India Pvt. Ltd., have repeatedly emphasized that entertainment industry disputes must consider commercial realities, especially when plaintiffs wait until the last moment to take legal action.
Thus, the judgment reinforces the idea that courts will prioritize commercial stability over last-minute copyright claims, unless the plaintiff can demonstrate overwhelming evidence of clear-cut plagiarism and no prior knowledge of the alleged infringement.
While the ruling is consistent with judicial precedents, it raises broader concerns about the difficulties faced by independent creators in asserting their rights against large production houses. The decision sets a high bar for copyright claims in the film industry, particularly when:
- The film is based on historical events that are widely known.
- The plaintiff fails to act promptly despite having prior knowledge of the project.
- Substantial investments and third-party contracts are involved, making an injunction impractical.
Ultimately, the judgment highlights the delicate balance between protecting creative works and preventing litigation from disrupting the entertainment industry. However, it also underscores the power imbalance between individual creators and major film studios, raising the question: Does Indian copyright law truly safeguard the rights of independent writers, or does it favour commercial interests?
A Critical Take: Where the Court Might Have Erred
The Bombay High Court’s ruling in the Sky Force case aligns with established judicial precedents discouraging last-minute copyright claims in the film industry. However, the decision also raises important concerns about whether procedural delay should outweigh substantive copyright infringement claims. The judgment largely focused on the timing of the lawsuit rather than addressing the merits of the plaintiff’s allegations, which calls into question whether the court provided adequate protection for an independent creator’s rights.
1. Was Denying an Injunction Solely on Timing Fair?
The court justified its refusal to grant an injunction by citing delay in filing the suit, but this reasoning overlooks certain complexities in copyright disputes, particularly in the film industry. The plaintiff contended that while the teaser of Sky Force was released in October 2023, it did not reveal specific creative elements that were unique to his script Fire Bird. He argued that it was only after seeing the full trailer in January 2025 that he realized the extent of the alleged copying.
This raises an important question: Should courts expect plaintiffs to act purely based on preliminary materials like teasers and media reports, rather than concrete evidence such as a trailer or an actual screening of the film? The court’s stance suggests that plaintiffs must anticipate potential infringement and act pre-emptively, even in the absence of clear evidence. This approach may place an unfair burden on independent writers, requiring them to initiate legal action based on speculation rather than substantive proof.
2. Does This Ruling Favor Large Production Houses?
The judgment reflects a broader trend in Indian copyright litigation, where courts tend to side with major production houses in cases involving large-scale film projects. While the defendants claimed that ₹250 crore had already been invested in the film, the plaintiff’s intellectual property rights were given less importance compared to the financial stakes of the defendants and third-party distributors.
This raises concerns about the power imbalance between individual writers and big studios. Filmmaking is a resource-intensive industry, and studios can afford strong legal teams to challenge copyright claims, whereas individual writers often lack the financial and legal resources to engage in prolonged litigation. By prioritizing commercial stability over potential infringement claims, the court’s decision may discourage independent creators from asserting their rights against large production houses.
3. Could the Court Have Considered an Alternative Remedy?
Instead of outright denying the plaintiff’s request for an injunction, the court could have explored alternative remedies, such as:
- Ordering a private screening of the film for the plaintiff to assess whether substantial similarities existed.
- Allowing the release but imposing a post-release damages mechanism where the plaintiff could seek compensation if infringement was proven later.
- Directing an expert panel to examine the two scripts (Fire Bird and Sky Force) to determine if substantial copying had taken place.
These alternatives would have allowed the film to be released while still protecting the plaintiff’s copyright claims, striking a more balanced approach. The court’s rigid reliance on procedural delay failed to account for the fact that creative works require protection regardless of timing.
While courts must prevent frivolous last-minute lawsuits, they also have a duty to ensure that genuine copyright claims are not dismissed solely on procedural grounds. The Sky Force ruling underscores the judiciary’s preference for protecting financial investments over creative ownership, reinforcing the notion that copyright laws may be less accessible to independent creators.
This case serves as a reminder that the legal system needs to evolve to better accommodate the realities of the entertainment industry, where infringement may only become apparent at a later stage. The judiciary should consider more flexible approaches in cases where substantive copyright issues are raised, rather than prioritizing procedural concerns over the core issue of intellectual property theft.
Larger Implications for the Film and IP Industry
The Sky Force judgment carries significant implications for screenwriters, filmmakers, and the broader intellectual property (IP) landscape in India. While the decision aligns with past precedents discouraging last-minute injunctions, it also raises concerns about how effectively copyright laws protect independent creators against large production houses.
1. Impact on Screenwriters and Independent Creators
This ruling reinforces the burden on screenwriters to act swiftly in protecting their intellectual property. Independent creators often lack the financial and legal resources to monitor industry developments and pursue early legal action. If courts continue to prioritize timeliness over substantive copyright claims, it could deter writers from asserting their rights, fearing that any delay, even if reasonable: may weaken their case.
Additionally, this judgment highlights power imbalances in the entertainment industry, where production houses with substantial financial backing can navigate legal complexities more effectively than individual writers. Without stronger safeguards, screenwriters may hesitate to share their scripts with studios, fearing potential misuse without legal recourse.
2. Lessons for Filmmakers in Protecting Their Work
This case serves as a cautionary tale for writers and filmmakers about the importance of proactive legal protection:
- Registration of scripts with copyright authorities and film industry bodies can serve as strong evidence in infringement cases.
- Well-drafted agreements and NDAs should be used before sharing scripts with production companies.
- Regular monitoring of industry developments is crucial—writers must act immediately upon discovering potential misuse of their work.
3. Strengthening or Weakening Copyright Enforcement?
While the judgment ensures that film releases are not unfairly obstructed, it may weaken copyright enforcement by setting a high bar for proving infringement claims. Courts appear to be favouring commercial interests over creative rights, which could lead to reluctance among writers to legally challenge potential infringements.
Ultimately, this ruling underscores the urgent need for reform in India’s copyright enforcement framework to strike a fairer balance between protecting original creators and ensuring commercial certainty in the film industry.
Conclusion & thoughts
The Sky Force judgment highlights the ongoing tension between copyright protection and commercial interests in India’s entertainment industry. While the court’s emphasis on timeliness aligns with previous rulings, it also raises concerns about the challenges faced by independent creators in asserting their intellectual property rights. The decision prioritizes financial investments and industry stability over a deeper examination of the plaintiff’s infringement claims, which could discourage screenwriters from seeking legal redress.
In my view, the court did not strike the right balance. While preventing last-minute disruptions is necessary, dismissing a claim solely based on delay, without fully investigating the substance of the plagiarism allegations, sets a problematic precedent. Instead of outright denying relief, the court could have ordered a private screening, sought expert evaluation of both scripts, or imposed a conditional release with a provision for post-release damages. These alternatives would have protected both commercial interests and the plaintiff’s copyright.
Going forward, India’s copyright litigation framework needs reforms to ensure a more equitable approach. Courts must consider alternate remedies beyond outright injunctions and emphasize preventive measures, such as stronger contractual protections and industry-wide script registration protocols. Additionally, establishing specialized IP courts for entertainment disputes could help ensure faster and fairer adjudication.
Ultimately, the Sky Force ruling serves as a wake-up call for creators to be proactive in safeguarding their intellectual property. However, it also underscores the need for a more balanced and creator-friendly legal approach to copyright disputes in India.
[1] Sandeep Gangatkar v. Sandeep Kewlani & Ors., Commercial IP Suit (L) NO. 2130 OF 2025.
[2] Sushila Sharma v. Madhur Bhandarkar, Notice of Motion, No. 3391OF 2009.
[3] Sai Paranjpaye v. PLA Entertainment Pvt. Ltd., (2013) 04 BOM CK 0183.
[4] Dashrath B. Rathod v. Fox Star Studios India Pvt. Ltd., AIR 2017 (NOC) 604 (BOM.).
Authored by: Ms. Aeshita Marwah
Blogger, The IP Press
Leave a Reply