Uphaar tragedy made nation bow its head in shame, says HC denying stay on web series 'Trial by Fire'

A massive fire had broken out at the Uphaar cinema during the screening of the Hindi film 'Border' on June 13, 1997, claiming 59 lives.

NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court Thursday dismissed a plea by real estate tycoon Sushil Ansal, convicted in the 1997 Uphaar cinema fire case, to stay the release of web series 'Trial by Fire', observing the unimaginable tragedy made the 'nation bow its head in shame'. The web series, 'Trial by Fire', inspired by the tragedy, is scheduled for release on Netflix on January 13.

A massive fire had broken out at the Uphaar cinema during the screening of the Hindi film 'Border' on June 13, 1997, claiming 59 lives. Ansal, who alleged defamation, had urged the court to grant an injunction against the release of the web series, saying even its teaser got 1.5 million views in four days which shows the immediate impact it has.

As the 83-year-old Ansal, one of the owners of the cinema hall, also sought to restrain the circulation and publication of a book titled 'Trial by Fire- The tragic tale of the Uphaar Tragedy', Justice Yashwant Varma said that for the reasons best known to him, the plaintiff chose not to initiate any injunctive action in respect of the literally work when it came to be originally published on September 19, 2016.

The book was authored by -- Neelam and Shekhar Krishnamoorthy -- who lost their two children in the blaze.

"A slothful or sluggish plaintiff seeking an injunction of the nature which is sought in these proceedings cannot be allowed to claim such reliefs," the high court said.

The high court said, "Undisputedly, the horrific incident which occurred on June 13, 1997 has been the subject matter of public debate and discussion since then. The unimaginable tragedy which unfolded on that date had made a nation bow its head in shame."

It said the work on which the web series is based has been penned by parents who had lost their teenaged children in the unfortunate incident and it is a story which alleges a systemic failure, manifests a cry of anguish against the manner in which the incident was prosecuted and tried.

"It essentially represents their perspective and opinion. A fictional rendition of their trials and tribulations cannot, prima facie, be presumed to be defamatory. More fundamentally, their personal experience and perception of the incident or the culpability of the plaintiff would remain their belief, impression and understanding of the entire episode," said the court.

"Ultimately it would be for a reasonably informed individual acting upon contemporary standards to form his/ her opinion. In any case and prima facie the court finds itself unconvinced to record or arrive at the conclusion that the narrative penned by defendant nos. 4 and 5 (the Krishnamoorthys) could be said to be wholly fantastical or deprived of a semblance of the truth as conceived," the judge said.

The court noted that the web series is yet to be aired and it had no occasion to view the same in its entirety and said it would be wholly inappropriate to grant injunctive reliefs at the ad interim stage even before the fictional work has been viewed and properly examined.

It also took into consideration the disclaimer which is proposed to preface the web series which merely claims to be 'inspired' by the book. The court, which said the information and reportage of the tragedy has remained in circulation for the past 26 years and this material was always available in the public domain but prior to this, Ansal neither alleged nor asserted that his right to a fair trial was or had been prejudiced.

"This court is thus of the prima facie opinion that the right of defendant nos. 4 and 5 to narrate their tragic journey through police precincts and court halls far outweighs the asserted and yet unsubstantiated loss of reputation of the plaintiff," the judge said.

The court also rejected the submission of Ansal's counsel that the web series was likely to have a wider circulation and a greater impact than a written work and the grant of an injunction should be considered at this stage.

Since the plaintiff chose to remain indolent and took no pre-emptive steps in respect of the said work at the first available opportunity, the court found that there exists no justification to grant ad interim relief to him.

It said the court was constrained to observe that prima facie Ansal clearly appeared to have concealed material facts and practised misrepresentation while asserting that he became aware of the contents of the book only on or about January 8, 2023.

"The court comes to conclude that the narrative of the authors was available in the public sphere right from 2016. This clearly disentitles the plaintiff from the grant of ad interim reliefs," it said.

Ansal claimed the web series directly attacks his personality.

Ansal's plea was vehemently opposed by the counsel for the producers of the web series, Netflix and authors of the book -- the parents. Senior advocate Vikas Pahwa, representing the Krishnamoorthy couple, said the book is not about Ansals, it is about the whole trial that took place in the case.

When the book was published, an application was filed in the Supreme Court that Ansals should not be allowed to travel abroad and notice was issued to them and a reference to the book was also there in the plea, he said.

In his plea, Ansal said he has been "punished both legally and socially" and the release of the series, based on the book written by a couple who lost their two children to the fire, will cause irreparable harm to his reputation and breach his right to privacy.

"The events are causing and will cause loss of reputation of the plaintiff, public trial, humiliation, stigmatisation and irreparable injury along with causing grave prejudice to the revision petitions pending before this court arising out of the (evidence) tampering case," the suit said.

In 2017, the Supreme Court had finally decided the Uphaar cinema blaze case and directed the now 83-year-old Sushil Ansal and his brother Gopal Ansal (74) to pay a fine of Rs 30 crore each.

The top court had then released Sushil Ansal taking into account the period he had already spent in jail. The Ansal brothers and two others were later held guilty of tampering with the evidence related to the trial.