Salman Khan Kala Hiran Personality Rights Injunction: Delhi HC Issues Notice
On June 12, 2026, actor Salman Khan moved the Delhi High Court seeking an emergency stay on the production, promotion, and release of Kala Hiran: The Battle for Legacy, alleging the film unlawfully exploits his identity and damages his reputation.
A vacation bench of the Delhi High Court comprising Justice Neena Bansal Krishna issued notice to the respondents on Khan’s interim injunction application the same day, according to LiveLaw and ANI. No ex-parte stay was granted at this stage.
Background: How We Got Here
The dispute traces back to a commercial suit already pending before the Delhi High Court — CS(COMM)-1322/2025 — in which Khan’s personality and publicity rights were recognised and protected by an earlier court order dated November 11, 2025, according to ANI and NewsX.
The current interim applications, filed as I.A. 16036/2026 and I.A. 16037/2026 under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, arise from that same pending suit, per LiveLaw.
- On April 24, 2026, Khan’s legal team issued a formal legal notice to the film’s makers demanding immediate cessation of development and promotional activities, according to ANI and NewsX.
- Producer Amit Jani responded on June 2, 2026, rejecting all claims and asserting the film is not a biopic on Salman Khan, as reported by Outlook India.
- On May 29, 2026, the makers released a first-look poster allegedly depicting a character bearing Khan’s likeness, wearing a bracelet resembling his signature blue bracelet, and holding a firearm, according to ANI and Tribune India.
- Despite the legal dispute, the film’s trailer was released on June 12, 2026 — the same day Khan moved court — having been advanced from an earlier indicated date of June 20, 2026, per ANI.
The film’s subject matter sits at a charged intersection of law and public memory. Khan alleged the film and its promotional material are inspired by or based on events from the 1998 blackbuck poaching case in Jodhpur, Rajasthan, which arose during the filming of Hum Saath Saath Hain. That case involved proceedings under the Wildlife (Protection) Act, per Outlook India.
Khan’s plea also referenced the Arms Act, 1959, noting that the fictional character in the poster is shown holding a firearm despite Khan’s acquittal under that Act, according to NewsX.
Khan further alleged that social media posts made by producer Amit Jani after receipt of the legal notice contained statements the actor considers defamatory, per ANI and NewsX.
The Ruling — Key Findings
Justice Neena Bansal Krishna, sitting on the vacation bench, issued notice to all named respondents — producer Amit Jani, Jani FireFox Films, director Bharat Shrinate, Akshay Pandey, and others associated with the project — on Khan’s interim injunction application, as confirmed by LiveLaw, ANI, and Tribune India.
The court declined to pass an ex-parte stay order at this stage, observing that notice to respondents was necessary before any interim relief could be considered. As reported by ANI, Justice Neena Bansal Krishna remarked: “even if it’s a notice for a day, it is required.”
The matter has been listed for the next hearing on June 19, 2026, according to ANI, Tribune India, and NewsX.
Reactions & What’s Next
Appearing before the court for Salman Khan, Advocate Nizam Pasha submitted: “A film is sought to be made exploiting my personality rights. We are asking for an injunction on this film,” according to ANI and the Free Press Journal.
On the opposing side, producer Amit Jani has maintained that “not a biopic on Salman Khan,” and that the film focuses on the Bishnoi community’s long struggle to protect wildlife, as reported by the Free Press Journal and Outlook India. The makers describe the film as being based on publicly available information, not centred on any single individual.
The film is directed by Bharat S Shrinate and produced under Firefox Media Private Limited, according to the Free Press Journal.
With notice now issued, all parties are expected to appear before Justice Neena Bansal Krishna on June 19, 2026, when the court will consider whether interim relief — including a possible stay on the film’s release and promotion — should be granted pending final adjudication of the commercial suit.
The outcome will have significant implications for how Indian courts balance personality rights and the right to creative expression, particularly in cases involving real public figures and controversial historical events.
More legal news at The Courtroom.
What is the case number for Salman Khan’s suit against the Kala Hiran film?
The case is CS(COMM)-1322/2025 before the Delhi High Court. The current interim applications are I.A. 16036/2026 and I.A. 16037/2026, filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, according to LiveLaw.
Did the Delhi High Court stay the release of Kala Hiran?
No. On June 12, 2026, Justice Neena Bansal Krishna issued notice to the respondents but did not grant an ex-parte stay. The court indicated that notice to all parties was necessary before any interim order could be passed. The next hearing is on June 19, 2026, per ANI and Tribune India.
What are personality rights and how were Salman Khan’s previously protected?
Personality rights protect a person’s identity, likeness, and reputation from unauthorised commercial exploitation. The Delhi High Court recognised and protected Salman Khan’s personality and publicity rights in an earlier order dated November 11, 2025, within the same pending commercial suit, according to ANI and NewsX.
What do the makers of Kala Hiran say the film is actually about?
Producer Amit Jani has stated the film is not a biopic on Salman Khan and focuses on the Bishnoi community’s struggle to protect wildlife. He responded to Khan’s legal notice on June 2, 2026, denying all claims and asserting the film is based on publicly available information, per Outlook India and the Free Press Journal.
Disclaimer
Disclaimer: This article is for general information only and does not constitute legal advice. Laws may change or vary by case — consult a qualified lawyer before acting. The Courtroom is not liable for any reliance on this content.
