Subtitle: The appeal filed by actor Darshan Srinivas and Vijayalakshmi Darshan challenges the vacation of an interim injunction against the release of the Kannada film, alleging resemblance to the pending Renukaswamy murder case.
High Court Records Producer’s Undertaking
The Karnataka High Court on June 25 briefly heard the BOSS film dispute involving actor Darshan Srinivas and his wife Vijayalakshmi Darshan. The couple challenged the vacation of an interim injunction against the release of the Kannada film BOSS. During the hearing, Siri Productions assured the Court that it would not release the film until June 30.
Justice Pradeep Singh Yerur recorded the oral undertaking given by Senior Counsel Vivek Subba Reddy on behalf of Siri Productions. The Court then posted the matter for further hearing on June 30.
Producer Agrees To Delay Release
Senior Counsel Vivek Subba Reddy informed the Court that the producer would not release the film before the next hearing.
After recording the undertaking, the Court fixed the appeal for hearing on June 30.
Appeal Filed By Darshan And His Wife
Darshan Srinivas and Vijayalakshmi Darshan filed MFA No. 4257/2026 (CPC), titled Mr. Darshan Srinivas & Anr. v. Siri Productions & Ors.
They challenged the order dated June 2, 2026, passed by the XVII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, in O.S. No. 2151/2026. The trial court had dismissed I.A. No. 1 and vacated an earlier ex parte ad-interim injunction.
Film Allegedly Mirrors Pending Criminal Case
According to the appellants, the film BOSS draws heavily from the pending criminal case involving Darshan Srinivas and the death of Renukaswamy.
They pointed out that Kamakshipalya Police registered Crime No. 0250/2024 under Sections 302 and 201 of the IPC against Darshan Srinivas and others.
Teaser Released On Social Media
The producers released the film’s teaser on March 9, 2026, through YouTube, X, and Facebook.
The appellants claimed the teaser opened with the words “Inspired by True Events.” They also argued that it contained several similarities to the pending criminal proceedings.
Notice Sent To CBFC
On March 12, 2026, the appellants issued a statutory notice to the Regional Officer of the Central Board of Film Certification under Section 5B of the Cinematograph Act, 1952.
Despite the notice, the CBFC granted Certificate No. DIL/7/33/2026-BAN to the film on March 17, 2026.
Trial Court Initially Granted Relief
The appellants instituted O.S. No. 2151/2026 before the City Civil Court, Bengaluru, on March 27, 2026.
The same day, the trial court restrained the respondents from producing, releasing, exhibiting, streaming, or otherwise dealing with the film BOSS through an ex parte ad-interim injunction.
Trial Court Later Vacated The Injunction
Later, the trial court dismissed I.A. No. 1 and vacated the interim injunction by its order dated June 2, 2026.
The court held that the appellants failed to satisfy the three essential requirements for granting an injunction.
Appellants Challenge Trial Court’s Findings
In the appeal, the appellants argued that the trial court wrongly treated their claims as speculative.
They maintained that the court overlooked audio-visual material showing several alleged similarities between the teaser and the pending criminal case.
Dispute Over Protagonist’s Character
The respondents argued that the film’s protagonist was a cricketer.
However, the appellants submitted that the teaser contained no cricket-related scenes. They argued that the overall impression linked the film to the pending criminal proceedings.
Earlier Protective Orders Relied Upon
The appellants relied on several earlier court orders relating to media coverage of the criminal case.
These included O.S. No. 4267/2024, O.S. No. 6082/2024, W.P. No. 24836/2024, O.S. No. 7875/2024, and W.P. No. 7473/2026.
Media Trial Order Cited
The appellants also relied on the Karnataka High Court’s order dated April 30, 2026, in W.P. No. 7473/2026.
In that order, the Court directed the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting and the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology to examine allegations of media trial and take action under the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995.
Fair Trial Concerns Raised
The appellants argued that releasing the film would affect Darshan Srinivas’ reputation, privacy, and right to a fair trial.
They submitted that the criminal case remains at an early stage. They also argued that a commercial film based on the prosecution’s version could prejudice the trial.
High Court Lists Matter For June 30
Senior Counsel S. Shyam Sundar, assisted by Advocate Pratham N, appeared for the appellants. Senior Counsel Vivek Subba Reddy represented the respondents and gave the undertaking on behalf of Siri Productions.
After recording the assurance, the Karnataka High Court listed the BOSS film dispute for further hearing on June 30. Until then, Siri Productions will not release the film, giving temporary protection to the appellants while the appeal remains pending.
