Chhapaak is an Indian Hindi – drama movie directed by Meghna Gulzar and produced by Deepika Padukone in collaboration with Fox Star Studios. This movie was released on 10th January 2020. It is a movie based on a real-life story of acid attack survivor Laxmi Agarwal’s life, and Deepika Padukone has portrayed her in the movie alongside Vikrant Massey.
The writer who claimed credits blaming for copyright infringement
This movie faced severe controversies and problems during its productions and after its release. Just a few days before its release, Chhapaak found itself amidst a controversy when a writer named Rakesh Bharti demanded writing credits for the film and that he had written the original story about Laxmi Agarwal’s life. His lawyer presented his case before the Bombay High Court claiming that the writing credits belong to his client. The plaintiff had approached various artists and narrated his story and ideas, from time to time, to artists and producers for the purpose of taking the services. He claimed that the producers have “maintained the entire story” which was originally conceptualized by him. On enquiring from the various artists, they were interested in launching the story to a movie, but the movie never rose to fame because the plaintiff couldn’t start the production with his son. In the end, Bharti pleaded the Bombay HC to issue a temporary order to delay all the releases of the film in theatres until he got writing credits for the film.
Bharti had also filed a copyright infringement suit against the makers of Chhapaak. He claimed that he had developed the idea since 2014 and in 2015; he had even registered the script with the Screenwriters’ Association after contacting Laxmi, the same year. He had even possessed a written copy of the document from 2015 which says that Laxmi had given him the right to write and direct a film about her life. He doesn’t want any kind of monetary compensation for the infringement; instead, he only wants writing credits. Meghna Gulzar had no comments on any of the accusations. Meghna Gulzar denied the claims of Bharti which said he had even approached her for the making of the film. The Court was of the opinion that his claim on copyright in an idea or subject matter of the film or on facts pertaining to Laxmi Agarwal was already in public domain and prima facie it was not possible to grant ad-interim relief. The Court also declined Mr. Bharti’s request of appointing a commissioner to compare his script with that of the film. The Court did not stay the release of the film and allowed Mr. Bharti’s liberty to raise disputations on similarity post-release of the film if required.
The credits not given to the advocate
Advocate Aparna Bhat, who had represented acid attack victim Laxmi Agarwal in court, was very upset with the film and had threatened to take legal action against the makers of the film. The person, who played the most pivotal role in the victim’s life, to ensure justice was served to the victim in the case fought in Patiala House Courts, was not given credits in the movie. Bhat took to Facebook to express her contentions against the movie and her feelings towards the fact that she was not given any credits. Soon after she had posted it, many people came out in support of Bhat for her contentions against the makers of Chhapaak.
She filed a complaint in Delhi High Court, seeking an interim injunction claiming that she has not been given due credit for her work. The Court then ordered the makers of the film to give credits to Aparna before the release. The Court said that is it is of the considered view that facts are indicative that the pique of the plaintiff for an interim injunction is well-founded and it is necessary that her contributions be acknowledged by providing the actual footage and the images. The Court also asked the makers to include the line, “Aparna Bhat continues to fight the cases of sexual and physical violence against women” in the film.
Conclusion
Following the film’s release, the state of Uttarakhand announced a new pension scheme for acid attack survivors. Despite having a terrible rating on the IMDb website, on Rotten Tomatoes, the picture is much different. This site does not allow IMDb style review bombing. Chhappak has recorded 83% audience with 35 votes. Amidst all this controversy, this movie may not earn a lot of money, but it will be a film to be remembered. This movie will be displayed in international film festivals, film studies, public channels, internet platforms, etc.
This film showed us a sensitive, delicate yet powerful story about the heinous crime against women in this country and an important story that needs to be heard. Chhappak earns its flourishes through Gulzar’s compassionate gaze that guarantees that the film doesn’t play pity on the victim’s character. This film taught us these victims don’t need sympathy from society, but empathy. They require to be given justice and opportunities to move ahead with their life instead of burrowing their sorrow in the dark corners of their house and live the rest of their lives in the depths of dejection.
