Filmmaker and producer Amit Jani has approached the Supreme Court against the Delhi High Court’s order directing the removal of the teaser and promotional material of his film Kala Hiran: The Battle for Legacy. The High Court passed the order while hearing actor Salman Khan’s plea seeking protection of his personality and publicity rights.
The film is reportedly inspired by the 1998 blackbuck poaching case involving Salman Khan. Salman’s lawyers argued that the teaser and related promotional material make recognisable references to the actor and use elements associated with his public persona.
Jani has challenged the High Court’s order, arguing that it amounts to undue censorship and restricts his right to freedom of expression. He has maintained that no individual can claim a monopoly over public records or historical legal cases.
Jani calls the High Court order hasty
Amid the legal dispute, Jani has also raised concerns about his safety. He has claimed that organised criminal groups have issued death threats against him and his family and have asked him to abandon the film project.
Jani has also argued that the High Court passed the interim order without giving his legal team sufficient time to present its case. The Delhi High Court order records that the producer’s counsel had sought two days to file a reply to Salman’s application.
High Court ordered removal of teaser and promotional material
The latest development follows the Delhi High Court’s July 27, 2026 order on Salman Khan’s plea. The court directed the makers and others involved to stop exhibiting, uploading, sharing or otherwise distributing the teaser and related promotional content across platforms. It also directed that specified URLs under their control be taken down within 24 hours.
The court also considered promotional interviews and social media posts linked to the film. Justice Jyoti Singh said the material could cause serious and irreparable harm to Salman’s reputation and goodwill.
The court noted that the teaser appeared to use several references that could lead viewers to associate its central character with Salman. These included the name ‘Ayan Khan’, references to ‘Dabangg’ and ‘Sikandar’, as well as details linked to the real blackbuck case.
What did Salman Khan allege?
Salman’s legal team argued that the teaser shows a character whose appearance and accessories resemble the actor. The petition also referred to a poster showing a character holding a rifle.
According to Salman’s plea, these elements could create an association between the fictional character and him. His lawyers also argued that the film deals with matters connected to the 1998 blackbuck case, some aspects of which remain subject to legal proceedings.
The petition further argued that the promotional campaign went beyond merely discussing a public legal case and used Salman’s identity and persona to attract attention to the film.
What did the producer’s lawyer argue?
During the hearing, Jani’s lawyer argued that Salman Khan’s name was not used in the film. He also said that no AI or deepfake technology had been used in the teaser.
The defence argued that the film deals with events that are part of the public record and that making a film about such events should not automatically amount to a violation of personality rights.
However, the High Court took a different view at the interim stage. It held that, prima facie, the teaser and accompanying promotional material appeared to commercially exploit Salman’s persona without his consent and could harm his reputation.
Why is the case important?
The dispute raises an important question about the balance between freedom of expression and celebrity personality rights. The Delhi High Court has previously recognised that a well-known person’s name, image, likeness, voice and other distinctive attributes can be protected from unauthorised commercial exploitation.
The Supreme Court will now hear Jani’s challenge to the High Court’s interim order. The case could also have wider implications for filmmakers who want to make films based on real people, public controversies and ongoing legal cases.
