Bollywood producer Firoz A. Nadiadwala has sent a legal notice to Netflix seeking Rs 25 crore in damages for parodying Baburao Ganpatrao Apte, the iconic character from the Hera Pheri franchise, in Netflix's The Great Indian Kapil Show. Nadiadwala said the show used the character without authorisation, thereby violating provisions of the Indian Copyright Act and the Trademarks Act.
"Baburao is not just a character, but the soul of Hera Pheri," Nadiadwala said, arguing that the legacy cannot be exploited for commercial profit. "This legacy was built with our sweat, vision and creativity. Paresh Rawal nurtured the role with his heart and soul. No one has the right to misuse it for commercial gain. Culture is not for exploitation; it is for preservation," Nadiadwala said in an official statement, according to LiveMint.
Nadiadwala alleged that Netflix's show used the character without permission, thereby violating Section 51 of the Copyright Act, 1957, and Section 29 of the Trademarks Act, 1999. Section 51 defines what constitutes copyright infringement, while Section 29 covers trademark violations.
The legal notice from Nadiadwala's team orders Netflix to:
It also seeks Rs 25 crore in damages within two days, warning that non-compliance will trigger civil and criminal proceedings against the streaming giant.
At the time of writing, Baburao's act from Hera Pheri remains live on Netflix's The Great Indian Kapil Show.
According to Cornell Law School, parody is a humorous imitation of a creative work that often exaggerates its style or elements to offer criticism or commentary on the original or its context.
The Indian Copyright Act does not explicitly exempt parody or satire. In an earlier interview with MediaNama during the Kunal Kamra vs T-Series case, Intellectual Property (IP) and technology lawyer Rahul Ajatshatru explained that, unlike the US, Indian law does not exempt parody from copyright infringement. Similarly, Shreya Suri, partner at IndusLaw, said, "India does not have a broad, open-ended 'fair use' defence like in the US."
Section 52 of the Copyright Act, 1957, explains fair dealing as covering:
In 1998, the Supreme Court of India laid out a three-factor test to determine whether a parody amounts to copyright infringement in the Civic Chandran v. Ammini Amma case:
Based on this assessment, the court reversed the previous order and ruled in favour of the freedom of expression of the defendants and clarified that the counter-drama play was valid under fair dealing.
When advocate Ashutosh Dubey approached the Supreme Court seeking a permanent injunction against Netflix for streaming the web series Hasmukh, which allegedly contained derogatory remarks against the legal fraternity, Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva refused to grant the interim injunction. He said: "The very essence of democracy is that a creative artist is given the liberty to project the picture of society in a manner he perceives. One of the prime forms of exposing the ills of society is by portraying a satirical picture of the same. Stand-up comedians perform that very purpose. In their portrayal they use satire and exaggerate the ills to an extent that it becomes a ridicule. In the humorous portrayal of the ills of society the stand-up comedians use satire."
Similarly, in 2005, during the Ashwani Dhir vs State of Bihar case, the Patna High Court noted that creative artists have the right to depict society, the political system, or political figures, including Bihar's ex-Chief Minister Lalu Prasad Yadav, as long as the work does not harm public order, decency, or morality. The court thereby ruled that the right to publicity is not absolute.
For context, the right to publicity refers to a person's right to control and profit from the commercial use of their name, likeness, or persona. This is similar to the personality rights that many Indian celebrities are now invoking to protect themselves from AI-driven misuse of their likeness.