Uphaar Cinema fire: Delhi HC reserves orders in Sushil Ansal’s plea seeking restraint on release of ‘Trial by Fire’

During the course of the hearing, which went on for around two hours, senior advocate Siddharth Aggarwal appearing for Ansal, 83, submitted before a single judge bench of Justice Yashwant Varma the case pertains to an “unfortunate incident” which resulted in the death of 59 people and injuries to 100 more for which his client has been tried. “I was found guilty of section 304A (causing death by negligence), sentenced, and directed to pay Rs. 30 crore as a fine which I did. There was a parallel proceeding on allegations of tampering with court records. I suffered the trial and was convicted,” said Ansal.

Aggarwal also informed the court both victims of the fire and Ansals have filed revision pleas against the order of the trial court in the evidence tampering case, which is pending before the high court. While Ansals have sought to challenge the conviction, the Association of Victims of Uphaar Tragedy—a registered society formed in the wake of the Uphaar fire tragedy—has challenged the reduction of the seven-year sentence, reduced by the sessions court to the period already undergone by Ansal as well as other accused.

Aggarwal also drew the court’s attention to certain passages from the book on which the show is stated to be based on. The book was published in 2016. Aggarwal had argued that the release of the upcoming show will have an impact on the pending judicial proceedings.

At this point, Justice Varma said, “That can’t be sanction for somebody to seek relief after three years when a book is transformed into a movie. You yourself admit that the book was published in 2016, so why will I look into it now”.

Justice Varma asked Aggarwal to show him the teaser/trailer. Aggarwal then read certain excerpts from the book and argued that the trailer/teaser received 1.5 million views when it was released on January 4. “Today the only glimpse we have into what’s going to be released is the book which makes it clear that I’ve gotten away scot-free. This teaser has got 1.5 million views in the past few days. Please consider the immediate impact it has,” Aggarwal said, adding the allegations of him being a “mass murderer” have been made in the book.

On the references to the book, Justice Varma said the “same may have been a critique of the trial and the prosecution’s case” but that has nothing to do with Ansal defamation claim. “Let’s stick to the grievance of the plaintiff. We will take care of the administration of justice,” he said.

Aggarwal referred to a 2012 article by The Indian Express to state that his client apologised to the Krishnamoorthys “with folded” hands in the Supreme Court during the proceedings in the main matter. “We still have 36 hours before the movie is out. I beseech this court that it sees the show. This movie is about how I am a mass murderer and not what I’ve been found guilty of,” he added.

At this point, senior advocate Rajiv Nayar, who represented Netflix, submitted there has been a delay on Ansal’s part to approach the court in the present case. Nayar said, “A book which was in the public domain since 2016 is being given a character in a picture (show). The concept of the book has been transformed into a film(show). Courts have deprecated injunctions on the basis of teasers. On September 19, 2016, the book was released. On December 18, 2019, there are news reports that a web series is going to be created. Two intervening dates may be noted, on 8 November 2021, the plaintiff (Ansal) was sentenced to 7 years with 2.25 crores, widely reported by the media. There is an appeal in sessions court and in July, conviction is upheld but reduces the sentence for the period already undergone”.

Nayar said on December 14, 2022, it was announced that Netflix was going to have a web series for release on January 13. “On January 4, I (Netflix) take out the official trailer. Yet again the plaintiff (Ansal) does not approach and approaches only on January 10. There are three stages of delay in this case. The gravamen of the allegation is the book (that the show is based on). Can we speculate what the film (show) would be?” Nayar asked.

Appearing for the producer of the show, Endemol India Pvt Ltd, senior advocate Sandeep Sethi said it would be in the public interest that there is no injunction on the release of the series. Calling the fire a “dastardly act”, Sethi referred to a Supreme Court judgment which held on the right of privacy versus the public interest that “once a matter becomes public record the right of privacy no longer exists”.

On behalf of the Krishnamoorthys’, senior advocate Vikas Pahwa said with respect to the tampering case there was no reference to the same in the entire book. Pahwa said, “When the book was published, an application was filed in the SC (by his clients) that they (Ansal) shouldn’t be allowed to travel abroad. Notice was issued to them and reference of the book was in application”. He said it was reported by a news organisation as well. “Very unfortunate that a misrepresentation is being made,” Pahwa argued.

At this point Nayar interjected, “I didn’t know about this. A gentleman who tampers with evidence, who was convicted for 304A, should now be convicted for perjury. Complete misrepresentation of fact”.

The counsel for the book’s publisher, Penguin Random House India Private Ltd, referred to articles published in the media as well as interviews with the Krishnamoorthys about the book. “That they (Ansal) had no occasion to read the book, that can’t be a ground for coming to court so late,” she said.

She added the book is not a documentary, and the allegations in the suit wherein Ansal claims that the book is “highly charged and emotional” are countered by the fact that this was the parents’ version of what happened. Only certain statements from the book have been extracted and not the whole book, therefore the Court has to only see these statements and not the entire book, she added.

Aggarwal, in rejoinder on the disclaimer of the series which states that it is a work of fiction, said, “Then what gives you the right of taking my real name thrice in that 30 seconds trailer? You take my name. I cannot say more than this.”

After hearing all the parties, Justice Varma thereafter reserved orders in the matter.