logo
High Court in Goa refuses former CM's petition to stay release of film ‘Costao'

High Court in Goa refuses former CM's petition to stay release of film ‘Costao'

Hindustan Times02-05-2025
The Bombay high court at Goa dismissed an appeal filed by former Goa chief minister Churchill Alemao who had sought an injunction against the release of the film 'Costão' that released on OTT platforms on Thursday -- a film loosely based on the life of customs officer Costão Fernandes.
Churchill had earlier approached the Civil Court at South Goa with a civil defamation case against the producers and others of the film seeking damages to the tune of ₹100-crore alleging that the film being produced 'was solely based on the narrative given by Costão Fernandes, in complete ignorance of various judicial proceedings that were initiated in respect of the incident, and which are contained in various judgments of this Court and of the Supreme Court based on an incomplete narrative of the facts of the particular incident and is in the nature of defaming [Churchill] and his family members, harming his reputation, his public image and his political status.'
In his petition, Churchill claimed that the film, if allowed to be produced and released, would portray him and his family as a 'villain' and would allow the producers to make commercial gain at the cost of [his] reputation and political career and of his family members.
In response, the producers and other respondents to the case defended the film stating that the entire case 'proceeds based on inferences drawn from newspaper articles and reports or comments made publicly by third parties who have not seen the film'; that their film is a work of fiction that does not purport to be a true story and that the real life incident 'may have inspired the film.'
The film contains a specific disclaimer that 'any resemblance to persons, past or present is purely incidental,' the producers also said.
Also Read:Nawazuddin Siddiqui swam in crocodile-infested lake for Costao, finished shot despite bike brakes failing
The high court bench of Justice Valmiki Menezes ruled in favour of the film and denied the injunction. The order of the court was released on Wednesday, a day before the film's release.
'Atleast at this stage, before the release of the film, the defendants have set out a case that the film is a work of fiction, dramatising an incident which is described in records of various courts. The defendants also claim that the film is based on inspiration derived from the facts stated in court records and from the version of the incident stated by Costão. The claim is that the film is a work purely of fiction and dramatizing the incident to give it a certain entertainment value for viewers. There are enough safeguards also placed in the form of a disclaimer. Nothing is shown on record to draw any likeness of any character in the film, which is not yet released, or for the Plaintiff to believe from any material that the character has a likeness similar to the Plaintiff or any members of his family,' Justice Menezes, said.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Kerala HC issues policy for use of AI for judiciary work: What does it say? Why is it significant?
Kerala HC issues policy for use of AI for judiciary work: What does it say? Why is it significant?

Indian Express

timea minute ago

  • Indian Express

Kerala HC issues policy for use of AI for judiciary work: What does it say? Why is it significant?

The Kerala High Court last week issued a policy document titled 'Policy Regarding the Use of AI Tools in District Judiciary' for 'responsible use' of artificial intelligence (AI) in judicial work. The policy aims to reduce dependence on AI in the judiciary by limiting its use to administrative tasks. This is the first time that a High Court in India has tried to frame principles and guidelines for using AI in the judiciary. What does the policy cover? The document focuses on four key principles: transparency, fairness, accountability, and the protection of confidential data. The guidelines apply to all members of the district judiciary, including judges, clerks, interns, court staff, and other employees who are involved in judicial work. They apply regardless of whether AI tools — softwares that use AI algorithms to perform different tasks such as problem-solving — are used on personal or government devices. The document provides a separate definition for Generative AI tools such as ChatGPT and DeepSeek, saying they produce human-like responses to prompts that have been entered by the user. The policy also differentiates between 'general' AI tools and 'approved' AI tools. Only an AI tool approved by the Kerala High Court or the Supreme Court can be used for court-related work. The guidelines set clear limits on the usage of AI tools. Writing, drafting legal judgements, orders, or findings is strictly prohibited. Translating documents by using AI tools without the verification of a judge or a qualified translator is also not allowed. Using AI for research work like looking up citations or judgements should be verified by an appointed person. The document encourages the use of AI tools for administrative tasks like 'scheduling of cases or court management'. However, it must be done within the observation of a person, and should be duly recorded. Errors in the tools, if any, must be reported to the Principal District Court or the Principal District Judge and forwarded to the IT department of the High Court. Judicial officers and staff are required to attend training sessions that cover the ethos and technical issues involving the use of court-related work. The document specifies that violation of any rule will automatically lead to disciplinary action. Why is the policy relevant? In February 2025, the Centre, in a press note, encouraged the use of AI in judicial work to help alleviate the backlog of cases and improve the speed of justice administration. Since then, several discussions have taken place regarding the risks and safeguards that such a move would require. On July 17, the Karnataka High Court, while hearing a petition on X Corp's challenge to the Centre's orders to block content under Section 79 of the IT Act, through Sahyog portal, discussed the usage of AI algorithms in moderating content on online platforms. Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta noted that 'there are instances where the lawyers start using AI for the purpose of research and artificial intelligence, as an inbuilt difficulty, it hallucinates.' AI hallucination is a blanket term for various types of mistakes made by chatbots in response to the facts inserted as a prompt. Justice M Nagaprasanna said, 'Too much dependence will destroy the profession…I keep saying dependency on Artificial Intelligence should not make your intelligence artificial.' In 2023, the Punjab and Haryana High Court took the assistance of ChatGPT to understand the global view on bail for an accused with a history of violence, including an attempt to murder. Justice Anoop Chitkara denied bail, seeking AI insights on global bail jurisprudence. He inserted the question in ChatGPT, 'What is the jurisprudence on bail when the assailants are assaulted with cruelty?' However, the court said, 'Any reference to ChatGPT and any observation made hereinabove is neither an expression of opinion on the merits of the case nor shall the trial Court advert to these comments. This reference is only intended to present a broader picture on bail jurisprudence, where cruelty is a factor.'

Delimitation in Telangana and Andhra Pradesh only after 2026 census: SC
Delimitation in Telangana and Andhra Pradesh only after 2026 census: SC

The Hindu

time31 minutes ago

  • The Hindu

Delimitation in Telangana and Andhra Pradesh only after 2026 census: SC

The Supreme Court, in a judgment, held that there was no discrimination against Andhra Pradesh or Telangana by the Centre by conducting delimitation exercise in the Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir without holding the same in the Telugu States. A Bench headed by Justice Surya Kant referred to Article 170(3) of the Constitution which mandates 'readjustment of seats in the Legislative Assembly of a State and the division of the State into territorial constituencies after each census'. The Section 26 of the Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act of 2014 was subject to Article 170(3) of the Constitution, the Bench held. Justice Kant said delimitation in the States of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana have to be conducted only after the census schedules in 2026. The top court dismissed the plea filed by K. Purushottam Reddy who sought directions to the Centre to operationalise Section 26 of the Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act which deals with delimitation of the Assembly constituencies in both the States.

1993 Fake Encounter Case: Ex Punjab Police Officer Sentenced To 10 Years In Jail
1993 Fake Encounter Case: Ex Punjab Police Officer Sentenced To 10 Years In Jail

NDTV

timean hour ago

  • NDTV

1993 Fake Encounter Case: Ex Punjab Police Officer Sentenced To 10 Years In Jail

Chandigarh: A CBI court in Mohali has sentenced a former Punjab Police officer to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment in a 1993 fake encounter case of two police constables. The court of special CBI Judge Baljinder Singh Sra also imposed a fine of Rs 50,000 on Paramjit Singh, who was then the station house officer of Beas in Amritsar. Singh (67) retired as a superintendent of police. In its order on Wednesday, the court acquitted three other accused -- the then inspector Dharam Singh (77), the then assistant sub inspector Kashmir Singh (69) and the then ASI Darbara Singh (71) -- in the case. Another accused, the then sub-inspector Ram Lubhaya died during the trial of the case. Constable Surmukh Singh of Muchhal village in Baba Bakala and constable Sukhwinder Singh of Khiala village were picked up by police on April 18, 1993. Surmukh Singh was taken from his home by the then SHO Paramjit Singh of Beas police station, while Sukhwinder was picked up by then SI Lubhaya in a scooter theft case. The parents of Sukhwinder visited the Beas police station but were not allowed to meet their son. Later, the Majitha police claimed that two unidentified militants had been killed in an encounter. Their bodies were cremated without identification, according to the CBI investigation. A week later an untraced report was filed by the then SHO, claiming that there was no need for further investigation in the matter. However, the CBI during its probe found that the encounter was staged and police fabricated documents to make it appear genuine. The CBI, which carried out the investigation on the directions of the Supreme Court in 1995, probe found that the two unidentified militants who were killed in the encounter were actually the two police constables. Referring to the families of the dead constable, the court in its order stated, "The court can very well imagine the plight of the family members who have been running from pillar to post since 1993 to seek justice. They must have incurred a lot of expenses for that and need monetary compensation for their rehabilitation." The court directed the secretary, district legal service authority Mohali to consider the case of the victims' families for award of compensation. CBI public prosecutor Anmol Narang, assisted by advocates Sarabjit Singh Verka, Pushpinder Singh Natt and Jagjit Singh represented the complainants.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store