Amidst all the love and box office numbers that “Dhurandhar 2” is getting, the film ran into trouble as Trimurti films filed a case against the makers for using the song ‘Oye Oye (Tirchi Topi Wale)’ in the film. According to the court’s order last week, the case is being resolved through mediation. On Wednesday, again Delhi High Court on Wednesday recorded filmmaker Rajeev Rai’s undertaking to refuse to speak to the media regarding the “Dhurandhar” 2 song dispute while it is in mediation. Justice Tushar Rao Gedela said that Rai had continued to make public remarks about the case as well as court proceedings despite the matter being referred to mediation. The court added that when a case approaches the judiciary, it is expected to take steps to publicly discuss sub judice issues. Senior advocate Swathi Sukumar, appearing on behalf of Rai, assured the court that her client would refrain from commenting on the matter during the mediation process. Having received this, the court stated that this restriction is essential to avoid the interruption of mediation efforts and to prevent the case from escalating outside the courtroom.The board has clarified that it has not given an opinion on the merits of the case at this stage. He also stated that the commitment will remain in force until the next hearing, when it will be reviewed again.The dispute stems from Trimurti Films’ allegations that the song Rang De Lal (Oye Oye) in Dhurandhar 2 is taken from Tirchi Topiwala, a song from the 1989 film Tridev, without the necessary permission. The defendants have denied these claims and opposed the requested temporary measures.The matter was referred to mediation last week. Wednesday’s proceedings were initiated by a petition from Super Cassettes, which alleged that Rai continued to give interviews after agreeing to mediation, commenting on both the court process and the substance of the dispute.Senior advocate Akhil Sibal, representing the company, argued that these statements were prejudicial and harmed the film’s box office. “We are called thieves to examine the case itself while it is before this Court,” he stated. He also said that a court cannot simultaneously demand that the court’s allegations be made public, adding that the remarks were to create a parallel narrative in the media about a matter awaiting trial.Responding to this, Sukumar said the comments were made out of exasperation and emphasized Rai’s readiness to cooperate in mediation. “Every day they get praise for being successful at the box office. Likewise, two people criticizing them will not bring down the sky,” he argued, maintaining that the accused should be open to criticism.He also reiterated that Rai had voluntarily agreed to refrain from making further public statements during the mediation to assist in the settlement, while opposing general restrictions on freedom of expression. The Court, however, stated that while individuals are entitled to their opinions, making accusations or commenting on an ongoing dispute is not appropriate. He emphasized that litigants must rely on the judicial process or seek remedies elsewhere, but that they cannot make parallel comments that could affect the proceedings.
